HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu (Tom Carter) 
Subject: Re: Stanford Graphics
Organization: Michigan State University, East Lansing Michigan 
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 12:31:13 GMT

In article <36731@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> dirkct@pine.circa.ufl.edu (Dirk Terrell) writes:
>In article <rhoward.713021222@matd>, rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes...
>>ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec) writes:
>> 
>>>In article <36662@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> fred@mole.cis.ufl.edu (Fred Buhl) 
writes:
>>>>Anyone out there had personal experience with Stanford Graphics?
>>>>
>>>>The reviews I've read said it was pretty cool, but that it was buggy.
>> 
>>>I'm interested in Stanford Graphics too and would like to know how it
>>>compares to Sigma Plot. Can anyone help here?
>> 
>>I don't know much about any bugs (I didn't use it long enough).  I
>>can't compare it to Sigma Plot (never used it).  But I can say this:
>> 
>>IT'S  S L O W !
>> 
>>It is practically unusable on my 386-33.  And to make it worse,
>>redraws are done so un-intelligently almost every action forces
>>you to wait while everything is regenerated.  I deleted it.
>
>   I have to agree with the above. I am running SG on a 486/50 and
>it is slow, especially during those damned redraws if you've got a
>few thousand data points. I am also running SigmaPlot 5.0 and it is a
>really good package in my opinion. I would recommend it highly for
>scientific graphics. It is a DOS program, but that isn't such a
>big deal for me since I'm running under OS/2. If you must have a 
>Windows program I guess SG is a reasonable choice, but I rarely 
>use it, mainly because it is slow. SG may evolve into a really good
>package someday, but right now it shows its youth.
>
>*********************************************************************
>Dirk Terrell           :"The more a statement of fact conflicts with
>Department of Astronomy: previous experience, the more complete must
>University of Florida  : must be the evidence which is to justify us
>                       : in believing it."   Thomas Huxley
>*********************************************************************

It seems I say this every month or so (and no - they're NOT paying me to say 
it), but the best scientific graphing program I've seen is Origin 2.0. I was 
just working on a graph with three data sets of over 11,000 data points 
each, and the screen redraws on my 486/33 took less than 1 sec. An older 
version is still (I think) available from the demo directory at 
ftp.cica.indiana.edu. I haven't tried SG, but from what I've read here on 
the net and in reviews in PC Mag an PC Week it's slow and buggy. Origin has 
a few bugs, but none of them are killers, just annoying. AND it's fast.
Just MHO.

============================================================================
|         Tom Carter                    |     carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu    |
|   Michigan State University           |     carter@msucem.bitnet         |
|     Chemistry Department              |                                  |
============================================================================
From: ed@kpc.com (Ed LaClair)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: Re: backgound file transfers
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:30:21 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

In article <714265709.0@davespc.mi.org> Dave.Beaujean@davespc.mi.org (Dave Beaujean) writes:
>Has anyone been able to successfully transfer files
>in the background while working in another window. I
>cannot get procomm for windows to work!!! It works
>fine until I alt-tab to another window, then I get
>errors (CRC, UART Overflow, etc.). When I change back
>into the window where I am doing the transfer (procomm
>for windows), the transfer continues fine. I am also
>having this problem with UUCICO (unix file transfers),
>and Telix (DOS comm software). It does not happen
>every time. Sometimes (20% of the time) the transfer
>works ok. After spending a week talking to Microsoft
>with 2 dozen unseccessful attempts, I am told that
>I may not get it to work at all. I am told (by one
>Microsoft technician) that he does the transfer with Telix
>and Procomm all the time with no trouble. I have tried
>everything! Even a brand new windows installation with a new
>copy of windows 3.1!!!
>
I had the same problem with my 486/33 until I changed the I/O board to one
with a faster UART (in this case a 16550AFN). Now I can switch windows to my
hearts content with nary a blip in the transfer.  Might be worth a try.

Ed

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed LaClair                              / Insert self-centered, low-class
Kubota Pacific Computer Inc.           /  slightly bizarre, left-of center,
2630 Walsh Ave.                       /   non-humourous, unintelligent, in
Santa Clara, CA. 95051-0905          /    poor taste, .signature line here.
408-748-6344 ed@kpc.com             /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: RESULTS: Windows FAX software (w/Intel SatisFAXtion modems)
Keywords: FAX software Windows Intel SatisFAXtion
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:15:04 GMT
Reply-To: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Organization: The John Fluke Mfg. Co.  /a.k.a. The Gizmonics Institute/

Basically, my one response was Mike Berger's previous post -- thanks much,
Mike. 

Some extra information I've managed to sift out:

*  Tried out FAXability Plus (the full-featured version) and it works very 
   well with the SatisFAXtion 400 faxmodem.  Still have to load that 64K
   CASMGR.EXE into DOS memory for the 400, but I'm resigned to that these days.

*  PC Magazine did a review of OCR software a while ago; I had been
   considering FaxGrabber, a Fax OCR package; PC Magazine recommended
   using a standalone OCR package with the fax board, as the interface
   for Fax Grabber was fairly primitive.

Given all that, I think I'll probably go with Intel's FAXability Plus
(there's a $20 rebate if you bought an Intel SatisFAXtion board, via a
coupon in the package), and go with a stand-alone OCR package if it turns
out I need it.  (I intend to send a lot of FAXes, but not recieve many (at
least not through my PC faxmodem.))

                           "As you approach 4.0, study time approaches
                            infinity."
                                           -- Prof. Ralph Noble
---
                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET:     moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO:        You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
                 **>> Keep circulating the tapes <<**
From: ehunt@bsc835bsc.edu (Eric Hunt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: Re: Any recommendations for Windows communications apps / w/Unix?
Keywords: Windows Communications Apps, Windows, Unix
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:54:03 GMT
Organization: Birmingham-Southern College

In article <1992Aug17.103032.17506@hemlock.cray.com>, kak1@cypress31.cray.com (Kevin Kramer) writes:
> her run.  What my point is, is there a reason to get a windows communications
> program over this DOS one?  Are there some features that Procomm Plus/Win or 

For me, it's a matter of principle. I have Windows, by God, I'm going to run
Windows programs! Personally, I think Telemate is the best comm program around,
but when I'm in Windows, I use ProcommPlus/Win.

Other people's reasons will vary.
-- 
Eric Hunt                     | bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College   | eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com
Birmingham, Alabama 35254     |          ^----nothing longer than 100 lines
From: apland@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: SPSS4Win
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:48:50 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

A week or so ago, SPSS posted a long message claiming that the article in
PC Week was misleading for various and sundry reasons.  They requested 
SPSS4win users (Beta testers?) to varify what they were saying but I have
seen no support for either opinion, PC Week or SPSS.  For those of you who
have used this package, how well will it run on networked (Novell 3.11) diskless
486 workstations with 8 megs of RAM?  SPSS claims it will run on a 286,386,486 
with 4MB ram and 15MB of disk space while PC Week claims that it should have at
12 meg RAM with a 10 Meg swapfile plus its install space.

Ron
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
From: rwilliam@bach.helios.nd.edu (richard williams)
Subject: Re: WP for Windows or Word?
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:52:34 GMT

In article <0095F13C.2CF87560@srcvax.cem.msu.edu> medlin@srcvax.cem.msu.edu (Stephen Medlin) writes:
>Just a quick comment.  Richard is correct about the reviewers.  I just 
>wanted to let you know that there was a fairly recent review of Win 
>word processors in PC Mag. (Feb. 25, 1992 11(4), pp.113-174).  Just to 
>quote a couple of lines from their review:
>
>     The best parts of WordPerfect for Windows are those that were written 
>     for Windows, such as the program's innovative file management feature 
>     and its button bar.  Evertything in the package that works like the 
>     DOS version seems awkaward, including its unzoomable editing screen, 
>     its inability to let you edit a full-page image, its incomplete use of 
>     fonts and similar products, and its code-based formatting that seems 
>     awkard and archaic in a GUI environment.  (p. 116)
>
>I am a WinWord user, but I have used WP4Dos personally and seen WP4Win 
>in use.  I felt like WP4Win was a bit immature (which it is since this 
>is the first version out whereas Ami and WFW are in their 2nd 
>versions).  I haven't tried it, but WFW included a WP emulation.  
>These are just my opinions.  It would be nice if a WP user would
>comment on the quote above, since I've found some inconsistencies in 

A zoom feature was added in the April WPWin maintenance release, which
also introduced several other nice features (e.g. drag and drop editing,
envelope and button macros).  I don't understand how its use of fonts is
"incomplete".  As a long-time WpDos user, I kind of like the code-based 
formatting (or am at least used to it).  Overall, I much prefer WpWin
to WpDos, EXCEPT for WpWin's speed, which can really be aggravating at
times.  I won't argue with anyone who says Winword is better, but I hope
that is just a temporary situation.  Part of the reason I stick with WpWin   
is because their tech support is outstanding and free, whereas whenever I
call Microsoft about something I can talk for an hour (at my expense)
and still not get a satisfactory answer.  (At least when WP can't
answer my questions it doesn't cost me anything).


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, N.D. Sociology Department         Office:   (219)239-6668
BITNET:    F67TEL@IRISHMVS                          Messages: (219)239-6463
INTERNET:  F67TEL@IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU                FAX:      (219)239-8209
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
From: edm@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Subject: WPWIN converts W4WIN to greek?!
Reply-To: edm@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Organization: Computer Center, CUNY Graduate School, New York NY 10036
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:25:55 GMT

Has anyone had this problem, or better yet, found a solution?  I recently
downloaded some Microsoft documentation in WinWord format, and when I
opened the files in WordPerfect the fonts had been converted to the SYMBOL
font, which is all Greek to me.  Since it is pretty much impossible to
set up a macro to convert fonts, as far as I can tell, the only solution
seems to be to read them as text-only, which is a poor solution at best.
Nor does the 4/92 update solve the problem.  Is there any way to change
the mapping of the fonts in the convert process?  Any solutions would be
greatly appreciated.

Ed Marx
edm@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
From: fred@mole.cis.ufl.edu (Fred Buhl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: Re: Stanford Graphics (summary)
Summary: A mixed report card
Keywords: graphics
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:05:14 GMT
Followup-To: fred@animal.ufl.edu
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

Based on the information supplied by my 4-5 respondents, I've concluded
this about Stanford Graphics:

It's powerful, and produces very nice output.

The current version (v1.01) is STILL buggy and crashes a lot 
though you can often keep on working with it when it does crash.
"Save often" was advised.

The interface has some rough spots -- a few things were more difficult to
do than they should have been.

It's SLOW even on fast machines, but it gets much faster 
if you have 8M of RAM instead of 4M.  

It redraws the screen a lot (after almost every action), and that can be slow,
especially with a "few thousand" data points.  You can abort the redraw by
pressing <Esc>, however.

The manual STINKS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks to all the people who responded.

I've decided to hold out for version 2.0, and see how it's received.  I
probably won't have to wait very long.  There's an ad in the current (Sept 15)
issue of PC Magazine (p205) which trumpets "NEW! VERSION 2.0".  Some of you
out there who already have a copy may want to upgrade.  If you do, try it out
and post your opinion -- the rest of us will be interested (at least _I_
will).

---------------------------------------------------------------------  (__)
Fred Buhl, Computer Guy       "Implementing the technology of the      (xx)  
Animal Science Department      mid-80's -- today!!"                   /-\/-\
IFAS, UF  (904) 392-1916       fred@animal.ufl.edu                   /|    |\
                                                                    ^ |    | ^
                               Slaughterhouse on the premises.        /----\
                                                                     /    \ \
------------------------------------------------------------------- ^      * ^ 





Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.apps:1893 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:1993 comp.os.msdos.apps:4284 comp.os.msdos.misc:4674 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:11408
From: jdsurlow@uci.edu (Jim Surlow)
Subject: Re: POP client for DOS and/or Windows?
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Organization: Office of the Dean, Humanities, UC Irvine
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:07:57 GMT

In article <Don.Rainwater-060892112022@ucrain.san.uc.edu> Don.Rainwater@UC.Edu (Don Rainwater) writes:
>Subject: POP client for DOS and/or Windows?
>From: Don.Rainwater@UC.Edu (Don Rainwater)
>Date: 6 Aug 92 11:24:48 EST

>I'd like to get some information about what is considered to be the 'BEST'
>POP client available for DOS and/or Windows systems.  The client should be
>fast and easy to use (especially for non-computer types), should talk to
>POP3 servers, and should hopefully allow the option of leaving the mail
>messages on the server.

>Any information is appreciated.  Thanks.
>--
>Don Rainwater, Systems Manager, Univ of Cincinnati Center for IT Services
>Don.Rainwater@UC.Edu

We use PopMail from the University of Minnesota (boombox.micro.umn.edu 
POPmail/pc/version_2.7.3).  It can speak POP2 or POP3.  It does not allow 
the option of leaving mail messages on the server.  However, one person who 
has helped them quite a bit, has written a strickly POP3 client app called 
NUPop (From Northwestern University).  I haven't looked at it much because 
we use POP2 and the last time I checked it was a beta version.  I don't 
remember the ftp site either.  However, you can ftp an older beta from 
ftp.uci.edu in ntslib/msdos/mail/nupop.  I'm sure there is documentation 
which will point you to the ftp site at Northwestern, so that you can get a 
newer copy.

Another option for POP3 which is Windows based (rather than the above which 
are DOS based) is WinQVT.  This package is shareware and has POP3 
capability.  It has many TCP/IP apps in it.  We tested version 2.2 and did 
not find the Mail that user friendly.  But I here now they are up to 2.7.  
I read in another news group that you can get it from ftp.cica.indiana.edu 
in pub/pc/win3/uploads (that last directory I'm not positive on -- check 
their index).

Jim Surlow
Humanities Computing Facilities
University of California, Irvine
jdsurlow@uci.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
From: toms@pdxgp1.intel.com (Tom Shott)
Subject: Re: Windows and Unix aware communication package
Organization: /fs3/l/toms/.organization
	<TGUEZ.92Aug5190201@jade.tufts.edu>
	<1992Aug6.173529.14291@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Distribution: comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:49:38 GMT


I just downloaded uwwin and there are a few major flaws that limit it's
usababality. It doesn't support terminal emulation well enough to run
emacs. Now the only s/w I have ever tried that really got the terminal
emulation close enough to use is kermit. Many of the comercial packages
like procomm end up mangleing the screen. A second problem is the way it
splits up the line between screens. If your working in one terminal window and
output appears in another terminal window your terminal lockups up until
all the output from the back window is sent. It needs to split the stuff it
send across the line into smaller chunks. The last problem is that when you
resize the window on the pc it doesn't change the size on unix. Kind of
silly looking to have a 30 line terminal w/ a 24 line emacs session in it.

The s/w is very nice but it's not yet usable for hardcore emacs use.
MacLayers for the obvious computer works much nicer, but I can't run it
(and somehow I am not sure the company I work for would aprove). The idea
is good and the software is going in the correct dirrection. My other small
bitch was they don't support vt100 emulation. My machine at work doesn't
come standard a termcap for either of the two (!) terminals they support.

Maybe in a few months it will get there.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Shott  INTeL, JF1-19, 5200 Elam Young Pkwy, 		(503) 696-4520
	   Hillsboro, OR 97124  		   	 toms@ichips.intel.com
 INTeL.. We brought you segments,432,EPROM,CISC,RISC,VLIW,EISA,DRAM,FLASH
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.windows.ms
From: gettys@regent.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:09:14 GMT


In article <1992Aug19.195153.24171@kpc.com>, ashok@kpc.com (Ashok Yerneni) writes...
> 
>I am contemplating purchasing some kind of word processing/
>scheduling software for my PC. Being an ignorant of the 
>PC world software, I was wondering if someone could help 
>me sort out the software.
> 
>What can/can't you do with Ms. Office? Would it also include
>a word processor? what else? I really only need  word processing
>software(like W4W), but would rather get software which can integrate
>everything(like spreadsheets/databases/slides/math).
> 
>thanks
> 
>Ashok



	Microsoft Office is merely a marketing arangement of Word, Xcel,
Powerpoint and a Mail program (I forget its name) at a price that is less than
the sum of the individual products. They ship with all docs etc., just not as
much excess cardboard shipping.


	/s/	Bob Gettys
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.apps:2142 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:2251
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: WANTED: News reader for windows
From: hippo@sonoma.edu (Michel Davidoff)
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:46:37 PDT
Organization: Sonoma state university
Keywords: NNTP Windows 3.1

In article <6881@stan.xx.swin.oz.au> h8eg064@stan.xx.swin.oz.au (Adnaan Gierdien) writes:
>Subject: WANTED: News reader for windows
>From: h8eg064@stan.xx.swin.oz.au (Adnaan Gierdien)
>Date: 21 Aug 92 12:28:36 GMT
>Keywords: NNTP Windows 3.1
>Hello. This is probably a FAQ but I've been through the common
>msdos archive sites and can't find what I'm looking for.
>
>I'm after a newsreader for windows 3.x, something like nn or vn
>that uses a NNTP server to connect to.
>
>I'm allready using a PD program called 'winvn' which actually wasnt
>written for windows 3.x at all but seems to work. Its only limitation
>is it isnt complete. One feature I do like is that it assumes you are
>allready connected to a NNTP server ( having done something like
>'telnet host 119' ). From there it just takes over and feeds the output
>from the nntp server to the program.
>
>Does there exist a program similar to this ?? or is there an updated
>version of winvn?
>
>Thanks in advance
>Adnaan
>ps. email preferred.
>--
>Adnaan Gierdien
>h8eg064@stan.xx.swin.oz.au
>Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.
Try WinQVTNet It has a nice News Reader
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
From: WKWINKEL@ibm.rz.uni-passau.de (Olaf Winkelhake)
Subject: Re: hypercard & windows
Organization: University of Passau - Germany
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:49:43 GMT

Kent,
there is a program called "convert it" to convert hcard files to
toolbook books and vice versa. It is from Heizer Software and should
be available at larger software vendors for about $200. I never used it
but people told me there is still some work to be done manually.
I do not know of any such program for plus, since the program exists for
both: mac and windows.
There is a mailing list for toolbook. You can subscribe at
toolb-l@uaf.sysb.bitnet (I think - if it doesn't work - I'll have to
look)
Toolbook is very similar to hypercard, as far as I can judge, except it
allows for colors. There is a demo available at ftp.cica.indiana.edu
(or somewhere else), called tbkdemo.zip or so.
Hope this helps
Olaf Winkelhake
University of Passau, Germany
Dept. of Economics
From: bise@aludra.usc.edu (Daniel W. Bise)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: Re: What's awful about PC Tools 7.1?
Date: 13 Aug 1992 16:28:20 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <92226.153824SASTPH@vm.sas.com> <SASTPH@vm.sas.com> writes:
>Some people report no problems with the Windows version of the 
>backup program. I suspect my problems were, as most things are 
>in the PC-world, configuration-dependent.  Therefore the Windows 
>backup program may work just fine for you.
>
>HOWEVER!!!!! In my case, the backup program APPEARED to be working 
>for me. It would make backups with no problem.  But, when I needed 
>to restore something it couldn't find the file.  

Both the DOS and Windows versions of PCTools7 Backup work fine for
but that's probably because I've learned to avoid a Restore glitch 
I've found to be common to **both** programs.

After reading the last disk in your backup set to come up with a
directory, I've found it prudent to take this disk out once you've
selected your files for restore (and before you hit the Restore
button).

PCTools will likely want another disk for the restore and will
see that the last disk (still in the drive) is the wrong one.
If you let PCTools go through this step of looking at the last
disk upon restore, it may claim that the next disk you insert
is unreadable. Taking the last disk out before PCTools has a 
chance to look at it and figure out what it is seems to
eliminate this problem. (I've wrongly thought I had corrupted
backup sets on several occasions because of this. The backup
sets were completely fine once I changed my procedures.)

---

One last problem (annoying but easy to avoid) with the DOS
version happens with Backups. In text mode, highlighting
the "Start Backup" button and hitting return can cause PCT
to crash during the backup. I've found it much safer to
simply hit "S" to start backups.

Other that this, a truly superb suite of backup programs!
No, seriously...

.--------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Daniel W. Bise			         bise@aludra.usc.edu |
| USC BArch (finally!)		           71601.1752@CompuServe.com |
| Sysop, The Patchbay BBS                 South Pasadena, California |
| V.32bis/V.32->WC!3.5/TCat!/Windows/TT Fonts/Grafix/MIDI/SoundCards |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------'
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.apps:2135 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:2246