HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Windows users please read (WAS: MS deceitful...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:04:20 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <1992Apr6.064707.19706@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:

>However, there is one difference to the PC<->Amiga situation in the
>Windows<->OS/2 debate. While the Amiga is simply ignored by the market,
>i.e. nobody cares about them, in Windows media (not only here but all
>kind of) and publications, much *misinformation* is spread about OS/2,
> ... and windows.

We are in the middle of a market war between IBM and MICROSOFT (newsflash)

Lets not be manipulated by either party.  There is nothing so good about
either OS/2 or Windows that we *must* all use the same os or die.  Frankly,
neither product is worth raising my blood pressure over.  I have a life outside
my computer (no implied insult to anyone unless they think they deserve it).
Just sit back, use what you like, and whichever one more people like for 
whatever reason will prevail.  Sometimes I feel like a participant in the 
McCarthy hearings of computers.  Cripes.  Mabye I *will* just go to UNIX.

-Ken Hamer

Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:11753 comp.os.os2.misc:10629
From: roy schmidt <rschmidt@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Boo Hiss MicroSoft
Keywords: Marketing Scam
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:59:58 -0500

Well, when my copy was delivered at 2:45 pm on Monday, I remarked to the
FEDEX delivery person, "You're late!"  She said, "No, the code right
here on the package says deliver by 4:30 pm on Tuesday, so it's actually
a day early!"

Yes, folks, Microsoft lied.

BTW, those who have been spreading around the Windows "casualty list"
should look at APPS.HLP in WIN 3.1.  It appears the over-zealous
reporter for PC Week copied this list but failed to point out that only
minor problems were reported in the APPS.HLP file for each listed
program.  For instance, the PC Tools 7.1 note observes that PC Tools 6.0
won't work, so you should upgrade to 7.1; in another PC Tools note, MS
"recommends" that you use SmartDrive instead of PC-Cache.  This whole
casualty list item was just a tempest in a teapot.

Yes, other people lied.

As another poster noted, if IBM gave me a delivery date, I would *know*
ahead of time they probably would slip delivery.  Now I can add MS to
the list.

 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Schmidt                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>     
Indiana University          |  /* They are _my_ thoughts, so you can't
School of Business          |     have them, so there! */

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: claude@spc9.jpl.nasa.gov (Claude A. Felizardo)
Subject: Need 800x600 AVGA driver for Win 3.1
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:22:42 GMT

The svga 800x600, 16 color driver supplied with Windows 3.1 doesn't seem to
be completely compatible with my AHEAD-5000 16-bit 1 Mb SVGA card.  When I
return from a DOS full screen back into windows, my screen is not restored
properly - flickering or extra graphics.  I don't think its my monitor since
it works fine with 3.0.

Also, my mouse doesn't seem to be available from DOS anymore.  I have a
serial mouse which is suppose to be Microsoft compatible.  Also, how do
you get the mouse to work in a DOS window?

Anybody have any ideas where I can obtain the appropriate drivers and exactly
how to install them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Claude A. Felizardo           Jet Propulsion Laboratory, M/S:525-3684
claude@spc6.jpl.nasa.gov      4800 Oak Grove Dr,  Pasadena, CA  91109
From: KTK-VK@finou.oulu.fi (Vesa Komulainen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Video 7 drivers for Windows 3.1?
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:05:21 GMT
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland

I wonder if anyone has tested if the V7 drivers (1024x768x16 and 800x600x16)
written for Windows 3.0 can still be used with Windows 3.1. Unlike Win3.1
-specific drivers for many other VGA cards, I have not seen any mention yet
of ones for the Video 7 series so anyone who knows better, please let me know.

Vesa Komulainen, University of Oulu
ktk-vk@finou.oulu.fi
umokasev@phoenix.oulu.fi
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: ssantiag@bellahs.com (Sam Santiago PSE)
Subject: Re: Mouse in DOS window????? Was: Re: VGA in DOS windows
Organization: Bell Atlantic Healthcare Systems
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:40:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.052517.11935@descartes.waterloo.edu> jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.180440.13543@ugle.unit.no> robert@solan.unit.no (Robert Schmidt) writes:
>>In article <ZiNHiB1w164w@olson.acme.gen.nz>, stefan@olson.acme.gen.nz (Stefan Olson) writes:
>> > kc2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kwan-Ju Chen) writes:
>> > 
>> > > Does Windows 3.1 supports vga mode under DOS windows?
>> > 
>> > Sure does, and what's more it displays DOS icons correctly (the icon you
>> > use the the PM displays when minimized!!)
>> > You can alos use the mouse in a dos window...
>> > 
>> > ...Stefan
>>
>>This is the one thing I haven't got working!!  Several people claim that
>>the DOS application will react to mouse activity, even if it's reduced to
>>a window in 386 enhanced mode.  I can't get this to work!
>>
>>By default, nothing happened when I used the mouse in the DOS window.
>>Then, by changing some option in the Control Panel, I got back to the
>>normal cut and paste of Win30 by default...
>>
>>Do I need a special mouse driver, or what?
>>
>What you need is a driver from your video card maker.  Somehow they are incorporated,  I have dirvers that are 3.1 aware and will allow the use of mice in a window (and change font size).
>
>


You should also set a parameter in your system.ini file to activate the mouse
in a windowed DOS window:

					.
					.
					[NonWindowsApp]
				=>	MouseInDosBox=1   // This will activate the mouse in a 
										 windowed DOS window.
					.
					.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Santiago                         - The opinions expressed here are 
Bell Atlantic Healthcare Systems       solely my own.
Greenbrae, CA  USA                          ...!uunet!bellahs!sam
From: rfs0838@zeus.tamu.edu (SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Dr.Dos 6 upgrade at ftp?
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:51:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr10.180207.25868@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, cdonnell@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris E Donnell) writes...
>Could somebody who has the upgrade put it on an ftp site to make it easy for 
>all of the other Dr.Dos users.

Some kind soul here uploaded it to tamsun.tamu.edu- Anonymous FTP access

It is in the directory ftp/pub/drdos-I installed it yesterday, on my PC, 
but havn't yet instlled 3.1, so I can't yet comment on its effectiveness.

It is an updated IO and DOS.sys, along with updated EMM386 and HIDOS.sys,
and new SSTOR drivers.

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?
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: dem21178@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan Montroy)
Subject: Re: BEST BUY Windows 3.1 Upgrade is $39.95
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:41:10 GMT

btsg6965@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Briand T Sanderson) writes:

>Just thought that some of you may wish to know that BEST BUY has
>the Windows Upgrade for $39.95. You have to bring in the front
>page of your manual, or your first disk from another Windows. This
>is the cheapest I've seen!

This is also the price I saw at WaldenSoftware, which is where I bought my 
upgrade.  The same rules apply:  you need your manual page 1 or setup disk to 
get it.

Dan Montroy
dem21178@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: vargish@sura.net (Nicholas Vargish)
Subject: Re: Offical Windows NT information from Microsoft!!! (right)
Summary: Ah, very informative
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:38:00 GMT

[Lots of verbiage with low informatative content removed]

Hey! I think I want a lawyer!

-- 
Nick Vargish
SURAnet Operations
vargish@sura.net
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: dorsai@iear.arts.rpi.edu (gregory d moncreaff)
Subject: Where is win3.1?
Organization: the committee for asethetic deletions
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:13:57 GMT

it is now 16:10 est monday april 6.

where is win3.1?

if the don't get it to me today i think msoft should refund
the shipping charges....


argh...
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 and WinGif?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:16:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.16APR199209162323
Distribution: comp
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr16.090804.14626@cs.tu-berlin.de>, 
wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes...
>echuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ernest Y. Chuang) writes:
> 
>>Does anyone out there with Windows 3.1 use WinGif?  It worked fine
>>for me under Windows 3.0, but after I upgraded to 3.1, it gives me
>>an error every time I try to load a .gif file (it still seems to
>>load other formats ok).  I'm just wondering if it's a real 
>>incompatibility, or if it's just my system.  I think the version of
>>WinGif I have is 1.0.
> 
> 
>Yes, I got the same problem with Wingif 0.90.
>Worked with win 3.0, but complains about the file format of .gif with win 3.1.
> 
>So I downloaded Wingif 1.4, and that works fine. It's better too.
> 
>BTW check out Paintshop Pro 1.0, not bad at all.

Not to play policeman or anything, but have you guys registered your 
shareware? (Just something to think about - no response required)

JD
From: bradley@cs.utexas.edu (Bradley L. Richards)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 install warnings
Date: 8 Apr 1992 12:39:52 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: saltillo.cs.utexas.edu

More hints for folks who haven't yet installed 3.1

-- If you have an S3 card, you *must* select the video driver "VGA 3.0"  As far
   as I can tell this isn't documented anywhere, but in the setup.txt file you'll
   notice that Windows 3.1 is *not* compatible with any of the current crop of
   S3 drivers.  And, at least in my case, none of the other "standard" 3.1 drivers
   work either.

-- Suppose you install 3.1, exit, and when you restart it you get a message telling
   you that you have to exclude upper memory beginning at B000.  In fact, what you
   need to do (see, I think, apps.hlp) is install the monoumb2.386 driver.  I won't
   go into how to do this (see the help file), but when I expanded the file, the
   expand program forgot to rename the file from "monoumb2.38_".  Hence, you may
   have to rename it yourself.

-- As someone has already mentioned, the "save changes" box is now a menu item
   under options.

-- Sound drivers are not installed during setup--you need to install them from
   Control Panel.

Cheers,

Bradley
From: v105mahs@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Peter P. Donohue)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: speeding up printing under MS Project Manager
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:36:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


   I run Microsoft Project Manager for Windows on a 386-33 mhz
with 5 meg of ram.  The ram is set up as 2 meg EMS, the rest
extended (set that way with EMM386.EXE that came with DOS 5).
I am printing color gant charts on a Paintjet XL with 11 by 17
paper.  My problem is that it is infernally slow.  It takes
10 to 15 minutes per page.  Most of this time, I can't use
the computer for anything else.  For a few minutes in the
beginning, the printer isn't even doing anything.  Is there
a way to speed up the printing?  Any way to get it to do it
in the background?
   Thanks for any help.

					Pete

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter P. Donohue - University at Buffalo, Graduate School of Management
bitnet:   V105MAHS@UBVMS                . I've stopped looking for a job...
internet: V105MAHS@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU .    I'm now begging for one!!!
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
From: cvagmmar@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:57:01 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvagmmar

Actually, I was the same way when it came to OS/2.  I was apprehensive
about the space that it requires.  But if you think about it.  Windows
takes about 5 MB, Qemm about 1 MB, DV about 1 MB, DOS about 1 MB,  and
all the utilities like PC TOOLS, NORTON, pretty much become obselete 
under OS/2 2.0.  A friend of mine said that he saw Wing Commander II and
Falcon 3.0 run on a 386 using OS/2 at the same time!  And in another demo
two disks were formatted at the same time with a BBS (Maximus for OS/2) in
the background according to a sysop.  I'm definetly going to take a look
at 2.0..

To keep this message on-topic.  Has anyone had any problems with comm
programs in 3.1?  I either lose characters, or sometimes I all of a sudden
get dropped to DOS!!  I dunno why.  It just puts me to DOS.  I have a 386
with a 100 MB HD.  Thanks for your help..
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: How about Paradise Drivers? (for those who care)
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:06:36 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

victor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (V Menayang) writes:

> In article <N6yZiB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) wr
> >kxj6@po.CWRU.Edu (Kijin Jung) writes:
> >
> >
> >Well my Paradise VGA Pro works fine and it is even older than the
> >1024. The number I have for the Paradise BBS is:
> >  Paradise BBS                    1-415-968-1834
> 
> What do you mean by "works fine"?
> Are you able to use your mouse in a windowed DOS session?
> I'm using the Paradise 640x480x256 driver for Windows 3.0
> but it doesn't work very well even though I use the grabber
> and VDD that come with 3.1.

I mean it works fine in 800x600x16 mode. I've never found much use for
the 640x480x256 modes. I found very little in 256 color modes that
would be worth giving up the extra screen resolution for. When I want
256 colors I drop into a DOS mode GIF viewer like VPIC, or I use
PC Paintbrush IV+. That way you actually get 256 colors, instead of
240 like I do under Windows (Windows reserves 16 colors for it's
own use) and I don't have to restart Windows to use them.


(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why I hate [insert here] Re: Pause before you consider OS/2
Date: 13 Apr 1992 00:48:50 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

WARNING: OS/2 discussion follows.  Sensitive Windows users may wish to skip
	 the rest of this article.

storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) writes:
>nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

>	Patronizing trash.  My origional point.

>>May I ask what "patronizing bullshit" you are talking about?  John merely
>>made a statement which is based on technical fact -- that Windows has
>>less system security than OS/2.  If you feel his statement is wrong, then 
>>come up with some technical evidence to refute him.

>	The comment was not directed ENTIRELY at whomever the origional
>poster was.  It was just directed at the general attitude of some of
>the comments in his posting, and those that MANY other people, both windows
>and OS/2 fans, have posted.

Somewhere in there you lost me.  I have no doubt the attitude you described
are present in some of the articles posted... but I haven't seen any in 
this thread.  This thread, if you remember, was started when someone quoted
some statements from Infoworld on OS/2 which were obviously incorrect. A
few people posted corrections, no one made any claim that OS/2 is better
than Windows, not me anyway.

>>Only from a TECHNOLOGICAL standpoint OS/2 has more strong points and less
>>problems.

>	There you go again.  "This one is better than that one in terms
>of viewpoint X"

<sigh>  This is getting pretty far off-topic, I'd better not comment on this
one.

>>Would you tell us just what you find to be stupid?

>	The continual fanaticism of the users here, and those who insist
>on telling other people that their choice of windowing system sucks.

Like I said, there probably were some instances when someone displayed
that fanaticism, but not in this thread.  As far as I can see, all 
responses to the original thread deals with correcting the misinformation
on OS/2, NOT putting down Windows.

--
                               _   /|
Nan Zou                        \'o.O'     "Procrastination is an art,
nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu           =(___)=     of which I am a master."
#include <std_disclaimer.h>       U
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Why I hate [insert here] Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 06:19:37 GMT

storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.210418.26317@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>Correction of more OS/2 misinformation, etc., etc.:
>>
>>And if you don't mind an occasional crash forcing a reboot (that is,
>>   more occasional than under OS/2 2.0),

>	Can we please stop this patronizing bullshit please...?  A hell of a 
>lot of people here are starting to sound like MacIntosh users...

That remark wasn't meant to be patronizing, although upon reading it
again, I can see how it can be interpreted that way.  My apologies.

I was dead serious.  Some people think the hassle of changing their
work environment isn't worth the correction of some of the hassles
their current environment causes.  I respect that.

>	Please don't make this another comp.sys.amiga.advocacy where they
>sling bullshit and competely unfounded facts around like the french did to
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It isn't an unfounded fact.  OS/2 has more protection than Windows.
My frequency of crash/reboot cycles dropped significantly after I
switched from Windows to OS/2.  The vast majority of other people
have reported the same thing.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: martin@patricia.verfahrenstechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Martin Hepperle)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: SoundTool 2.5 available !
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:06:48 GMT
Organization: Institute A for Mechanics, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Hi Folks,

SoundTool version 2.5 is available for anonymous ftp at:
129.69.1.12 /soft/incoming/pc sndtoo25.txt & sndtoo25.zip

I will put a copy on cica when it is up again.

SoundTool 2.5 now has support for:
SOU: raw 8-bit linear sounds
SND: Sounder & SoundTool raw 8-bit linear sounds
SNP: SoundTool packed 8-bit linear sounds
TXT: ANSI Text files, 8-bit range 0...255
NXT: NeXT 8-Bit and 16-bit uLaw sounds
AU:  SUN  8-bit and 16-bit uLaw sounds
IFF: Electronic Arts 8-bit linear samples
VOC: 8-bit linear samples found inside VOC files
WAV: Microsoft Multimedia 8-bit linear sounds

I have tested it under Windows 3.1, it runs with
DSOUND.DLL under 3.0 and 3.1.
Registered users can get drivers for SoundBlaster
and all Multimedia Extension driven devices.

Martin.
From: palmer@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Resource Kit - is this useful?
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:41:03 GMT
Distribution: usa

skelly@bucknell.edu (sean kelly `94) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.181441.6133@sequent.com>, rbk@sequent.com (Bob Beck) writes:
>> "Windows 3.1
>> Resource Kit" for $19.95 plus shipping/etc.  Does anyone have this and/or can
>> comment on it - is this useful?  What's in it?  Is it worth $19.95 +
>> shipping?
>I don't know if I'm right, but I was ont the MS BBS yesterday and I saw the Win3.1 Resource Kit as an available download.  Maybe MS figures the huge amount of time it would take to download (2 megs or something like that) wouldn't make it worth it.  Or maybe they just presume that not many people will be calling their BBS.  Any feedback?

>-Sean

In addition to the download time, I've heard the docs expand to quite a few
pages... the cost and hassle of both downloading and then printing out the
documentation (hey - 300 dpi is easier on the eyes than 72 dpi) will possibly
make it worth the $20 + shipping (another $5?).  Use the money you were
saving for that large pizza with extra cheese (no anchovies!).

--
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  23665
Temporarily a Techie: Center for Human-Machine System Research, Georgia Tech
Voice: 404-894-4318,    FAX: 404-894-2301,    Email: palmer@chmsr.gatech.edu