HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:07:41 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Apr13.171421.17859@alw.nih.gov> donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:

>In article <2379@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.) writes:
>/>In <1992Apr12.060438.25404@unixg.ubc.ca> twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:
>/>>...
>/>>well as the OS/2 products that's coming out. And a lot more companies
>/>>have stepped forward to say they will be coming out with a OS/2 version
>/>>of their program to make use of the 32 bit. I can't wait till I get the
>/>>CorelDraw for OS/2 or the Borland C++ (among the others planned) because
>/>>they sure can use the speed and power! :) Can't ever be satisfied with
>/>>more power.
>/>And what about LOTUS 123 for OS/2 2.0, Wordperfect 6.0 for OS/2 2.0,
>/>WATCOM C 9.0 for OS/2 2.0 (available NOW!!!) and those other 800! companies
>/>working on OS/2 2.0 software (Windows only has slightly more, about 1000,
>/>working on Windows 3.1 apps).
>/>
>/>
>/>>Thomas.
>/>
>/>Nico de Vries

>But what about the fact that Microsoft and Borland have sold more Window's
>development packages (SDK, C++ for Windows, Visual Basic, Turbo Pascal for
>Windows, QuickC for Windows etc...) than there are copies of OS/2 (all
>versions) in use.

When Windows 3.0 was released noone owned any of these. Did that prevent
Windows from becoming a success :-). But seriously the fact that OS/2 2.0
is all new (althought there are some similarities with OS/2 1.3) and
Windows 3.1 is just a beefed up existing product (and Microsoft did
a great job I am the first to admit that). Makes it trivial there are NOW
more Windows users than OS/2 users. It does in no way implicate this is going
to stay this way. OS/2 hasn't been released for 14 days and there are
already 2,000,000 orders for the program (mostly Windows 3.0 owners BTW).
IBM currently has only one problem, where to get diskettes :-) (actually
this problem really exists BTW).


>--
>Donald A. Lehn, Ph.D.                      Phone: (301) 496-2885
>Bldg.37 Rm 3D20                            FAX:   (301) 496-8419
>National Cancer Institute / NIH            Email: donnel@helix.nih.gov
>Bethesda MD 20892


Nico de Vries
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl                 FIDO      : 2:281/708.1  (very new) 
VOICE : +31-3404-24931 (+31-30-316931)    FAX       : +31-30-312033 
BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)     COMPUSERVE: (coming)
MAIL  : Hortensialaan 45, 3702VE, Zeist, The Netherlands 

IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;          - O   Place reserved for
Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please.    |    funny joke. Sugestions 
I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.      \_/   apreciated.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 09:49:59 EDT
From: <F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows an OS? [was Re: STRAW POLL: ...]
 <1992Mar30.152312.19469@alw.nih.gov> <92090.122348CXF111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr06.010158.22243@microsoft.com>


In article <1992Apr06.010158.22243@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete
SKELLY) says:

>Well, so windows uses DOS as its filesystem.
>HMMM, OS/2 uses a driver for its filesystems.  So does mach, NT, ...
>So I guess they aren't OS's either.

>If MS were to package DOS with windows as its filesystem driver, then
>would it be an OS.

>What if I were running MACH, and I purchased a filesystem driver from
>an ISV.  Would my mach be an OS.

>Frankly, I think this Windows is/isn't an os argument really doesn't have
>much of a point.  Windows gives me enought of the OS-like services that
>I need to run my windows applications, and that's all I need.  I suspect
>that most real users don't care whether windows is academically an os or not.
>They just want to use it to get their work done.

   Before we get into another discussion about whether or not Windows is
or isn't an operating system, would someone list the features a supposed
OS has to have to make it an operating system?

   Although I do agree with Pete; I could really care less about wheter DOS/
Windows is or isn't an operating system.  It has it's good points and it's
bad points.  But as long as you can get your work done, who cares?

                                                                    [Tim]
From: MALLETP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Cricket and Win3.1 compatibility
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:49:10 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

I was considering purchasing Cricket Graph for Windows so I called one of those
 mail order places and asked if Cricket was compatible with Windows 3.1. He tol
d me that there are FEW applications that are compatible. Since I am currently
awaiting MicroSoft's delivery of 3.1 I would like to know if there is any truth
 to this. I was under the impression that all applications compatible with Wind
ows 3.0 would also be compatible with 3.1. If not, I'll be sure to cancel my or
der to MicroSoft. If anybody knows whether or not 3.0 applications are compatib
le with 3.1 or if anybody has any comments/reviews of Cricket Graph for Windows
, I would really appreciate a posting or E-mail. Thanks in advance

Paul Mallet
INTERNET: MALLETP@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 02:57:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
: 
: By the same argument, Windows won't go anywhere either. It defaults to 2e8 on
: Com3 and 2e0 on Com4. I don't know about the rest of the world, but my machine
: thinks otherwise. So Com3 and Com4 wouldn't work until I changed the sys.ini
: file.........
:  

Steve, sorry guy but I am composing this from a DOS window of WIN3.0 using
my comm software.  I only needed to tell my comm software that my modem was
on com3 at irq7 and address 3e8.  I didn't have to do anything to windows.
My comm software also knows this in a DOS window of OS/2 but that's not good
enough.

This is enough of that experiment though.  Windows are slowwww under Windows.

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
From: antkasx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Ken A. Sturrock)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: (Q) PS/2 + Win 3.1 + mouse driver = boom on exit
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:04:46 GMT
Organization: Georgia State University

Howdy,
	Anyone else had trouble with either mouse driver ( v8.20 .SYS or .EXE )
locking up Win 3.1 enhanced mode on exit? 

Equipment:

		Win 3.1
		MS-DOS v5.0

		PS/2 Model '70 
		4M ram
		60M hard disk
		MicroSoft Mouse

Standard Mode appears un-affected.

						Thanx,

							-ks
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 corrupted permanent swap file
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:45:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwunix.jcmorris.703449921
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

hugh@slee06.srl.ford.com (Hugh Fader) writes:

>Windows 3.1 won't let me create a permanent swap file. When I try, and
>then restart windows, I get ``corrupted swap file'' message. I have a
>Compudyne 386SX with 2MB memory, 100 MB Seagate disk, and 40 MB
>seagate disk.

As a suggestion, look for hidden swap files on your hard disk and delete
them (outside of Windows, of course) and then restart Windows.  It will
report corrupted swap files; tell it to continue anyway and try a fixup.

Early beta versions of 3.1 had major problems with corrupted swapfiles (as
in full Windows reinstallation required to fix), but the final beta could
survive loss of the swapfiles with no problems once the corrupted files
were manually purged.  And no, I haven't tried this on a retail copy of
Windows 3.1.

Joe Morris
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:12627 alt.bbs.waffle:4265
From: boomer@wuntvor.norman.ok.us (Tom Egelston)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,alt.bbs.waffle
Subject: EMM386 Exception Error #06
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 22:42:33 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Eternal Apprentice BBS, Norman, OK

     I've been getting this error repeatedly and I haven't been able to find
anything useful about it, so...
     My setup is as follows:

     o 386/25MHz, AMI BIOS, 4MB RAM
     o MS-DOS 5.0, Stacker 2.0, Windows 3.0

     The software generally causing the fault is WAFFLE BBS, but it only 
happens under Windows and there appears to be no connection in what is being
done when it fails.

My autoexec.bat:
@ECHO OFF
PATH d:\ndw;d:\windows;d:\bin;C:\DOS;C:\STACKER;D:\WAFFLE\BIN;D:\PF;D:\VGA1024;D:\WS5;C:\FASTBACK
set WAFFLE=D:\WAFFLE\SYSTEM\STATIC
set WAFMAIL=D:\WAFFLE\BIN\WAFMAIL.CFG
set TEMP=d:\windows\TEMP
SET FASTBACK=C:\FASTBACK
SET TOPED=D:\WAFFLE\BIN\TOPED
d:\mouse\mouse
bnu /m-
image
stacker b:
PROMPT $P$G
VER
win :

And my config.sys:
SHELL=C:\COMMAND.COM /p /e:1024
DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DOS=UMB,HIGH
DEVICE=C:\EMM386.EXE NOEMS
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
DEVICEHIGH=C:\STACKER\STACKER.COM /M=64 C:\STACVOL.000 C:\STACVOL.001 @
files= 30
BREAK=ON
LASTDRIVE=E
BUFFERS=48
STACKS=16,512

     This has been going on for some time, but I have been unable to come up
with anything on it.  Any help or ideas you can offer will be greatly 
appreciated!


  Tom Egelston    boomer@wuntvor.norman.ok.us, tlegelst@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
     "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on?
           Read between the lines, criticize the words they're saying.
    Think for yourselves and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet."
From: rfs0838@zeus.tamu.edu (SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: DRDOS 6.0 and WIN 3.1
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:34:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1990@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes...
>In article <7APR199213051115@zeus.tamu.edu> rfs0838@zeus.tamu.edu  
>(SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR) writes:
>> 
>> 	I use DR-DOS 6.0 quite sucessfully myself, and find it to be much
>> more DOS compatable than MS-DOS 5.0.  
>> 
> 
>Perhaps you should define "DOS compatable."  Most of us define it
>as compatable with MS-DOS. Thus, MS-DOS is 100% DOS compatable.

>Jim Mann                                       
	
	Perhaps I should have said it is more compatible with the apps
we have. Pctools 5.5, the old Norton utilities, the WPinfo program in 
WP5.1(pre-6/91 release) all work incorctly even with the setver kludge
(what a wase of memory!). with out setver, we cannot run a couple of
apps that use WIN 2.0 runtimes(we only have 20 meg drives, so 3.0 is out)
or the Aplication Manager on our HP's.  These all work fine under DR-DOS
6.0, and we get upper memory on  EMS equiped machines.

	I'm not a DR booster(look at CPM/86!), just a satisfied customer.
If MS-DOS works for you, use it.

Best regards,
Rod Schaffter                                 	
Laboratory for Molecular Structure and Bonding	|Who cares if windows is or 
Texas A&M University Dept. of Chemistry		|isn't an opperating system-
Bitnet:   SCHAFFTER@TAMLMSB			|it barely operates at all!
INTERNET: SCHAFFTER@LMSBVX.TAMU.EDU		|
	"Standard Disclaimer, etc."		|An OOPerating system, maybe?
From: lygre@hsr.no (Eirik Lygre)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:21:08 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <moore.703043080@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu> moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore) writes:
>In <1992Apr11.132541.26604@engr.uark.edu> dch2@engr.uark.edu (David Hobbs) writes:
>
>>At the rollout at my local IBM yesterday, I saw the film at Comdex where
>>IBM was running 3.1 in a OS/2Win along with DOS and other OS/2 programs.
>>Reiswig(sp?) joked and said something to the effect of "Look what we've
>>done just 24 hrs. after 3.1 was released..."
>
>And now I'll ask the question everyone really wanted to know....
>
>Will OS/2 run my DOS games in a box? (or at all?)
>
>-- 
>   ________________________________________________________________________
>  /                                  /                                    /
> /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
>/__________________________________/____________________________________/

Yes (yes)

For more information, check out comp.os.os2.misc.


Eirik Lygre
lygre@hsr.no
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: Bummed about Truetype
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:48:24 GMT


In article <3439@balrog.ctron.com> frankp@ctron.com (Frank Perreault) writes:
>So -if- you didn't send bitmaps and -if- you didn't support partial 
>downloading of fonts, you'd have a font-laden harddrive and it probably
>wouldn't print any faster then it does now.
>

That is simply not true. There is no reason why you can't send down
exactly the characters you need - there is no law that says you have to
include unused letters in the font you send to the printer. There is
no law that ways that sending an "a" to the printer and telling it
"font qwrqw" means "print an "a" - it could mean "print a "b" in
Times Italic", while "b" in font qwrqw might mean "print a in Helvetica".

Some TeX .dvi drivers in fact do just this - they send down exactly the bitmaps
you need, no more, no less, in a "font" that they construct on the fly.

Whether those bitmaps come from disk or some on the fly generator
is immaterial. The printer does not have to support partial font downloading.


Doug McDonald
From: failsafe@cellar.org (Failsafe)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:26:58 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

woc8r@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (William Owen Carlson) writes:

> 
> I apologize for the intrusion into the Windows group, but I feel that this
> kind of misinformation should be corrected.  Please do not think that all 
> OS/2 proponents are total jerks.  I myself think Windows is perfectly fine,
> it just isn't the choice for me.  
> 
> Long live BOTH OS/2 AND Windows!!!!!
> 
> --
> ___    ___
> \  \  /  /       -=Bill Carlson=-
>  \  \/  /            
>   \    /         INTERNET:  woc8r@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU


	Finally a person with some courtesy and perspective on the OS/2 vs.
Windows situation! A few more like him may change the my perception that
most OS/2 pundits, at least here on the Internet (especially the Windows
groups :) !), are anything but opinionated, evangelistic jerks.


Steve Roth
Philadelphia, PA.
------
failsafe@cellar.org (Failsafe)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: Iskandar Taib <ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Trident Video Cards: Cut 'em some Slack folks!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:35:04 -0500

In article <1992Apr05.184251.43508@yuma.acns.colostate.edu| mm459504@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Michael Miller) writes:
|
|I've been listening to a lot of people bitch about Trident, ATI, Diamond 
|Speedwhatever, and a couple of other boards for quite some time now.
|
|I've had a Trident card for about 4 months now, use it with windows and use
|it REGULARLY in several different modes (1024x768x256 is excellent for looking
|at pictures n stuff but 800x600x16 makes for a good environment if you want 
|mind numbing (ok, really good) speed.
|
|I can't help but believe that these people try one or two drivers, DON'T
|read any documentation ('cause the helps not online and GUI's help the 
|functionally illiterate I guess) And then piss whine and bitch when the system 
|dosen't work right.
|
|Here are the Drivers I have for windows:
|t640c.drv       38560   5-01-91  4:32p
|t800-5.drv      38818   5-29-91 12:09p
|t800c.drv       38544   5-01-91  4:32p
|t1024c.drv      38540   5-01-91  4:32p
|t1024fc.drv     38703   5-01-91  4:33p
|w800.drv        42493   6-08-90  3:18p
|w1024c.drv      45041   5-01-91  3:55p
|w1024fc.drv     45231   5-01-91  3:57p
|
|with the exception of the 640-480x256 color mode, I've tried all of them, 
|and they worked just fine.


I agree. I use the drivers that came with my Diamond Speedstar and
all is well. 

Now though... I run at 800x600x256 and the speed is NOT mind-numbing.
I don't see why Trident hasn't come out with a better chipset.. they've
had long enough to do it surely. But then I suppose most people aren't
savvy enough to know better when buying a machine...



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,bit.listserv.win3-l
From: becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON)
Subject: Re: HELP: Lost my MT Fonts for WfW 2.0 !
Keywords: HELP Word for Windows Windows 3.1 MT Fonts
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:13:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.061431.13117@u.washington.edu> scalawag@milton.u.washington.edu (Keith Frederick) writes:
>Okay, today I received Windows 3.1 (ya!). Before I installed it
>though I thought I would start things over with a "clean slate." Thus,
>I erased my Windows and Word for Windows directories and then installed
>Windows and then Word for Windows.
> 
>All went well, except now that when I got to the Equation Editor in
>Word, it tells me that it cannot find the MT Extra and MT Fences fonts.
>This causes the Equation Editor  to print something totally different
>than what it should (i.e. the equation editor is no longer useful). I
>have tried to re-define which fonts the Equation Editor uses but it
>continues to complain about not having the MT Extra and MT Fences fonts.
> 

Try running the Control Panel, Selecting the Fonts icon, then choosing
"Add..." button. Navigate to the directory contiaining you MT Extra and
MT Fences fonts (should be your system directory), then select and add
them. They will then appear in the font browser in the Control Panel
Font app, and will be available to Equation Editor.

- Brian


Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:41:09 GMT

vick-paul@CS.YALE.EDU (Paul A. Vick) writes:
>
>As great as OS/2 is over Windows, as great as Windows is over
>DOS, as great as the Mac may or may not be over the PC, or as great as
>the Amiga may or may not be over the rest of the world ;-), the truth
>is it takes _money_ and whole lotta _time_ to change total computing
              ^^^^^
>environments, which is not always simple given the fact that people
>primarily use computers to get their real _work_ done. 

You had some pretty good comments.  I just wanted to note that for
many people, staying with older technology can in fact be expensive
too.  I bought Desqview/QEMM ($125) and Hyperdisk ($49) to fill out
inadequacies of DOS and Windows, and now I'm facing another upgrade
from Desqview/QEMM and from DOS 4.01 if I really want to continue
in the Windows world.  That's about another $100 (plus $49 for Win 3.1).
Under OS/2 2.0, Desqview, QEMM, and Hyperdisk are not needed (their 
functionality is built in), so I save money.   

I'm not trying to be argumentative--I think Windows is a good choice
for many people.  I just wanted to give the other side of the argument
on that point.

Steve Smith 
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: sharok@ee.ualberta.ca (S. Sharoki)
Subject: Versatec Plotter Drivers
Organization: EE/CE Department Univ of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:19:02 GMT
From: ajross@husc8.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Trident 8900B drivers for win 3.0
Summary: Do win3 drivers exist for the 8900B chip?
Keywords: Trident SVGA 8900 8900B VGA Graphics
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:00:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ajross.703526427

I have an OEM graphics card based on the trident 8900B (that's right, B)
chip.  The Windows 3.0 drivers supplied by trident are primarily written
for the 8900C chip.  My card has 1MB, but only the 800x600x16 driver will
work with it (this is a 512k mode).  NONE of the 1024x768 drivers will
work.  Does anyone know if win3 drivers exist for the 8900B chip?  If so,
do you know of an FTP site that carries them?

Many Thanks

Andrew J. Ross                    ajross@husc.harvard.edu
39 Hurlbut St.                    Undergraduate, Physics Dept.
Cambridge, MA  02138              Harvard University
From: moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: 3.1 & TrueType problem
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:41:06 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Apr8.193712.2652@vax1.umkc.edu> ebath@vax1.umkc.edu writes:


>I am sorry if this question has already been brought up, but I have been 
>away playing with 3.1 for a couple of days now (instead of keeping up with 
>my NEWS).  When I print a TT font under 3.1 to my Epson 7000 laser printer
>(with "real" driver finally) the fonts don't come out at the right size.
>Perhaps I am just a bit too anal retentive, but when a font is labeled 72
>point I feel that it should be 1 inch tall.  Considering some of the feats

When a font is 72 points, that means there is one inch from the top of the
tallest letter in the font to the bottom of the lowest 'descender' letter, (eg
a small y, g, j).  There usually won't be any letters that are as tall as the
total point size. 

Not sure if that's what you're talking about or not, but a 72 point font
usually doesn't have any 1 inch letters in it.

-- 
   ________________________________________________________________________
  /                                  /                                    /
 /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
/__________________________________/____________________________________/
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms