HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows does not multitask (repost)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:26:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.195949.24379@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>I'm afraid you missed the point.  If his company has to develop for Windows,
>they should be using OS/2 to do that, since an app crashing doesn't kill OS/2
>the way it kills Windows.  
>
>From the response that IBM has had at its order line and the increase of volume
>in the OS/2 groups coming from new/wannabe OS/2 users, I think any company that
>doesn't look at OS/2 development is shooting themselves in the foot.

Let me get this straight, John.  You discount the large number of
Windows users out there, but want to make a big deal out of the fact
that a lot of people are paying $50 for OS/2?  Most of them are
probably getting it for the same reason I am; just to see.  I also
upgraded to Windows 3.1 and got DesQView/X.

Get real and GIVE US ALL A BREAK FROM YOUR PROPAGANDA.  If we want to
see it, there are lots of newsgroups that have 'OS2' in their titles.

>
>John W. Linville
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
>|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: Norman.Russell@f43.n140.z1.fidonet.org (Norman Russell)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Win3 and QEMM
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:06:02 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:140/43 - U of S Computing Se, Saskatoon Sask

Hi,  
  
I was wondering if it is worth my money to purchase the QEMM  
memory manager for DOS when running MS-Windows 3.0 or 3.1? 
 
  
Is the QEMM memory manager any better than the hi-mem manager  
that come with Windows?  
  
 ... Thanks in advance  
  
   Norm    (norman.russell@f43.n140.z1.fidonet.org)  
  
 
... OFFLINE 1.35 * Error 216: Tagline out of paper. 

--  
Norman Russell - via FidoNet node 1:140/22
UUCP: ...!access.usask.ca!weyr!43!Norman.Russell
Domain: Norman.Russell@f43.n140.z1.fidonet.org
Standard Disclaimers Apply...
From: thomas@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Thomas Plass)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1: mouse.sy_ and mouse.co_, how to decompress?
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:45:24 GMT
	<1992Apr11.162240.25663@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: thomas@uk.ac.ed.cogsci
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh
In-reply-to: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu's message of 11 Apr 92 16:22:40 GMT

[how to decompress Windows installation files]

In article <1992Apr11.162240.25663@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>  The solution is to use the compress.exe program (which is on my
>  harddrive in the windows directory even though I don't see
>  it on any of the diskettes.)
>  
>  The commands are:
>  
>  compress a:mouse.sy_ mouse.sys
>  compress a:mouse.co_ mouse.com
>  
Carl,

if you are right about your solution then Microsoft must have released
two different "English" versions of Windows 3.1 The decompression
utility used by Setup is called expand.exe on my distribution disks
which I got from Microsoft England.
Consequently, the command is (assuming a suitable path and there isn't any
other expand.exe on your path):

    expand a:\mouse.sys c:\<your_windows_dir>\system\mouse.sys

Similarly for the executable.

th.


--
Thomas Plass                                    | University of Edinburgh
Fax:   +44 31 650 4587                          | Centre for Cognitive Science
ARPA:  thomas%cogsci.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk| 2 Buccleuch Place
JANET: thomas@uk.ac.ed.cogsci                   | Edinburgh EH8 9LW Scotland
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jkb@ms.uky.edu (Keith Burton)
Subject: ATI WONDER+ WIN31 Driver Needed.
Keywords: ATI WONDER+ VGA WIN31 DRIVER
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:17:42 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Bytes: 

After three days of near-constant autodialing, I am still unable to get
connected to the ATI BBS. The Wonder+ drivers aren't on Compuserve yet, and
I can't find them on any FTP sites (not that I've looked on ALL of them...).

If you have downloaded this file (ATI Customer Support says the filename is
'WIN31VGA.EXE'), please send me a copy. In return for you going to the 
trouble, I will then distribute it to anyone who needs it until I can upload
it to cica, and will upload it to Compuserve at once.

Thanks!
Keith Burton
From: press@venice.sedd.trw.com (Barry Press)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: SoundBlaster on Exit.
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:01:38 GMT
Reply-To: press@venice.sedd.trw.com
Organization: TRW Systems Engineering and Development Division

In article <sg05iINN6fo@cs.utexas.edu> Bradley L. Richards writes:
>Nick Susch writes:
>>after windows quits, my Soundblaster card make a buzzing, static type sound.
>>This does not happen most of the time, but it is annoying when it does. Does
>>anyone know what would be causing this?
>No idea of the cause, but you're not alone--it happened to me twice, both times
>at a volume that left me peeling myself off the ceiling.

Ditto.  It appears, in my case, that all such events followed having run
Secret of Monkey Island 2 in a DOS full-screen window.  I used to have similar
problems (and more often) when I used the old FM drivers.

_____
Barry Press                                           press@venice.sedd.trw.com
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: vargish@sura.net (Nicholas Vargish)
Subject: Windows 3.1 and SuperStor: WARNING
Summary: destructive bug
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:25:54 GMT

I got my 3.1 upgrade from Egghead on Monday and experienced a whole
lotta crashes (3.0 had been _very_ stable, despite all the stuff I had
running under it). I called Microsoft yesterday and tried a few things
the techrep suggested. After about the 8th or 9th reboot (while on
long-distance phone) the 11 free megabytes on my SuperStor partition
(drive d: -- I left c: uncompressed) vanished. Chkdsk found 800k is
lost chains, but that didn't quite do it.

I said goodbye to the techrep (wonder if he'll call me back? :^) and
started the laborious task of making sure everything I needed was
backed up... then repartitioned and reformatted my hard drive. Re-
installed everything (well, what would fit without SuperStor). Now
things look good -- no crashes or inexplicable halts.

The version of SuperStor was 1.2, I think. It was the one distributed
with DR-DOS 6.0 (I was running it under DOS 5* for compatibility
reasons, with no problems, until 3.1). Have people had similar
problems with later versions of SuperStor?

This bug did not just *hang* my system, but rendered my SuperStor'ed
partition unusable (at least I could recover the files). This bug
should be considered destructive. So _watch out_!

Nick Vargish

p.s. Yes, I have legal copies of both DR-DOS 6.0 and DOS 5.0.

-- 
Nick Vargish
SURAnet Operations
vargish@sura.net
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:42:32 GMT

In article <DEMILLO.92Apr10140113@egeus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo ) writes:
>>
>>Well...before you consider...
>>
>>According to InfoWorld:
>>
>OS/2 2.0 will *not* be compatable with Windows 3.1
>

What a crap is this? It's like 

	Don't buy Windows 3.1 because it will *not* be 
	compatible with OS/2 2.0. 

A guy who expresses such a crap is a moron.

A biggest mistake IBM ever made for OS/2 2.0 was to claim that "better
Windows than Windows." The purpose of OS/2 2.0 is to make you win over
the other capability without LOSING your current investment. It's not
used to flatter Windows 3.x or up. Its major function is 32-bit computation
with the *bonus* of running DOS/Windows junkies.


Wen-Chun Ni
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: eri316@tijc02.uucp (Ed Ingraham         )
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Review
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 14:10:01 GMT

From article <44316@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, by rusbasan@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan):
> 
> I'm surprised no on has reviewed Windows 3.1 yet.  Since I've had time 
> to play with it for a while, I thought I'd do the honors...
> 
...
> There have been a number of negative posts about Windows 3.1.  I was 
> about ready to add my voice when I first installed it, but after 
> making these tweaks my mind was completely changed.  Windows 3.1 is 
> *great*.

Hear, hear. I second your comments. I, too, am a satisfied customer.

I recommend installing 3.1 in a new directory and then copying the old
essentials over after installation is complete. That gets rid of the
garbage that accumulated in \windows over time.

My copy arrived as expected by 10 AM April 6 and was running shortly
after.



Ed Ingraham, WX4S
Siemens Industrial Automation, Inc.        (615)461-2608 voice
3000 Bill Garland Road                     (615)461-2174 fax
P. O. Box 1255                             eri316%tijc02@uunet.uu.net
Johnson City, Tennessee 37605-1255
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau)
Subject: Re: Fastdisk or 32 bit access in Win 3.1
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:49:41 GMT

In article <14387@pitt.UUCP> cap@mb5000.anes.upmc.edu (chris pilewski) writes:
>WHAT IS FASTDISK FOR?
>At the moment, FASTDISK is used only in 386 enhanced mode for
>fast access of virtual memory (the swapfile).  FASTDISK will
>not speed up any disk operations that don't use virtual memory.

  Hmmm I thought I read somewhere that another reason 32bit access
speed up file operations is that in 386 enhanced mode the CPU doesn't
have to switch out of protected mode for file operations (i.e. in 3.0
it has to switch to real mode and use Dos).  I thought it was in PC
Magazine, and it seems to contradict what I've heard about 32bit access
(i.e. I think your definition is right).

  I am surprised to see so many people posting how much faster disk
access is once they switch on 32bit access.  If your system is
not swapping it shouldn't make a difference at all.

*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii           
Internet: lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu, Stephen_Lau@asylum.flex.com 
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: huot@cray.com (Tom Huot)
Subject: Diamond Speedstar Drivers for WIN 3.1
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:11:32 CDT

Just thought I would pass this along in case you haven't read PC MAG
this month. You can get an apparently free copy of the 3.1 drivers
mailed to you if you dial 408-736-2000. Just leave voice mail according
to the message on the line with your name, address and version of the
Speedstar board you are using and they will send it out to you.

-- 
*****************************************************************************
* Tom Huot				       email address: huot@cray.com *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: btsg6965@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Briand T Sanderson)
Subject: DUMB QUESTION about SPEAK.EXE (RE: How to install it.)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:16:54 GMT

I just downloaded the SPEAK.EXE file from MSDOS_UPLOADS on WUARCHIVE.
I will probably figure this out soon myself, but for the benefit of others
who may not know what to do, and in case I don't figure it out, what does
one do with speak.exe to install it? Is it a self-extracting zipfile, or
does it install itself or does the control panel know what to do with
the .exe file to make it a .drv file? A Post to this newgroup would help
me and probably others with this.

For those of you who would like the specifics as to where to get this
driver. It is located at wuarchive.wustl.edu in pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS. Don't
forget to change the transfer type to binary.

Briand Sanderson

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: btsg6965@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Briand T Sanderson)
Subject: BEST BUY Windows 3.1 Upgrade is $39.95
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:21:43 GMT

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!

B. Sanderson
From: sharif@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Thomas Abdallah)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 and Stacker, NOT!!
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:17:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523


Two items of note here:

	(1)	Make sure that you are NOT trying to setup your swapfile
		on the Stacker partition.  Windows 3.1 needs direct access
		to your hard drive for most effective use of swapspace.

	(2)	Do NOT run FASTDISK !  This is perhaps the most persnicketty
		piece of software I have ever run into. (FASTDISK that is)

It has been my experience that the DOS 5.0/Stacker 2.0/Win 3.x combination
works best given the following configuration:

	o	Stack ~80% of your hard disk.
	o	Swap C: and D: so the stacked partition appears to be C:
	o	Install Win 3.x permanent swapfile on logical D: (physical C:)
	o	Run SmartDrv as per default setup.

I have yet to have any problems with this sort of configuration.  Of course I
have been accused of constantly trying to optimize my system....


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Thomas-Sharif Abdallah                                                      |
| sharif@lamar.colostate.edu                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: Andrew.Carpenter@f501.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Andrew Carpenter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: windows 3.1 and com p
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:00:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: wyrm.703080151.1

HM>You mentioned "better" support for COM ports... Windows 3.0 handles COM
ports
HM>quite nicely -- OK I admit I was doing alot of swearing myself there for a
HM>while :0'  But with a bit of tweeking v3.0 will handle all of your comm's
needs
HM>there are just two things to remember when configuring your ports...

One flaw: the Win 3.1 serial driver doesn't support 16550 buffers in DOS
aps, and in any case it only supports the receive buffer and not the
receive buffer.  Also, you can't set the interrupt trigger level, which
is set at 14--so when an interrupt is requested there are only 2 bytes
remaining in the buffer before it overloads.  I've concluded that
Turbocom still makes sense in 3.1--it has none of these limitations.


 * Origin: SeaHunt BBS, PCBoard / HST-DS 1-415-431-0227  (8:914/501)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: karu@nevada.edu (N.H.A. KARUNARANTE)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:11:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.163917.7041@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:
>karu@nevada.edu (N.H.A. KARUNARANTE) writes:
>
>>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, and it does that better than my Windows.
>>You can run Apogee games that use graphics, Wing Commander, etc.
>>really nice.
>>Note that I am not "selling OS/2" but simply answering a question.
>>Thanks.
>>Karu.
>
>Will OS/2 2.0 run games that use the soundblaster?  I tried this with
>SWOTL under win 3.1, and my soundblaster started making these awful noises.
>However, the I can use the soundblaster to play sound samples from a dos
>box, which is nice.
>
>>karu@nevada.edu
>
>------------
>Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
>Intergraph Corporation                                  
>bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum
Bailey,
I have heard that you can use the sound blaster card. However, since I
do not use one I cannot give a direct answer but rely on hearsay.
Better raise this question in comp.os.os2.misc. Somebody should be
able to answer more authoritatively.
Sorry.
karu.

KARU@NEVADA.EDU


Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: gooey@helix.nih.gov (Sean Graham)
Subject: Windows Workstation / Win 3.1 / Novell 3.11
Keywords: LAN, Novell, Windows 3.1
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:43:40 GMT

	I just got Windows Workstation (v4.0d) last week and picked up
	Win 3.1 Monday morning at Egghead (where I saw the UPS truck
	unloading Excel 4.0 as I left).

	So I decide to be daring and install test copies of both for
	myself (supervisor) to see what it will act like (we've been
	running Win 3.0a over Netware 3.11 for quite a while now)and
	I've noticed a few "features" I didn't count on:

	In setting up new groups EACH and EVERY Microsoft icon shows
	up in B&W while all the others work (finally figured out that
	they were 256-color icons...haven't figured out why yet).

	Creating new Network Groups in the Appman Shell of WW, I get
	"Cannot save DUKE:REALLY/BEAT/MICHIGAN/HUH.APP" errors.  Now,
	I've got full rights to save to the WW directory, but I still
	get these errors.  Haven't figured this one out yet.

	If anyone is running the above combo (or the Lan Man version)
	and could stand a few questions about Windows Workstation
	please email me.

	Thanks in advance...

	Sean

--
|| Sean N. Graham                 NIH               DoD# 601  AMA# 601894  ||
|| '91 GSX600FM | '85 RX-7    Bethesda, Md          gooey@helix.nih.gov    ||
|| "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcasting System.  This is just a   ||
|| test.  In the event of a real emergency you would most likely be dead." ||  
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Best win3.1 upgrade strategy with NDW
Keywords: win3.1 & NDW
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:44:16 GMT

tim@qed.cts.com (Tim Capps) writes:

>Just for fun, I went through all the MS provided icons in my NDW group
>windows, and changed the ICON with 'Properties'.  I just told it to load
>the icon from the program file, and it picked up the new spiffier MS icons.

Just as a reminder, users looking for icons to assign to locally-added
Windows or non-Windows apps should check out MORICONS.EXE, which is in
the base Windows 3.1 directory.  The icons there (including some for
products which compete with Microsoft's offerings) might be useful to
a lot of systems.

Joe Morris
From: skelly@bucknell.edu (sean kelly `94)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Mouse in DOS window????? Was: Re: VGA in DOS windows
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:41:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa.

In article <9sXRiB2w164w@olson.acme.gen.nz>, stefan@olson.acme.gen.nz (Stefan Olson) writes:
> It only works in 3.1, and you need the latest MS mouse driver (8.xx) to get
> it working...
> 
How can I get the new mouse driver?  Is there a Microsoft online number that it can be downloaded from?  Or perhaps a friendly neighborhood FTP site...

Sean
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: scott@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Evernden)
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 and SMARTDRV
Keywords: windows 3.1 smartdrv
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:58:32 GMT

In article <1033@mavrick.UUCP> luis@mavrick.UUCP (luis basto) writes:
>
>Windows 3.1 replaced the old SMARTDRV.SYS with SMARTDRV.EXE which seems
>to have more control on setting up a disk cache. However, when I run
>CORETEST v2.8, the read/write speed is almost an order of magnitude slower
>than when using the simpler SMARTDRV.SYS, almost to the point of having no 
>disk cache.

YES!!

In my tests using both CORETEST and SI, my disk speed were identical
with and without SMARDRV 4.0.   Some disk cache...

Windows operates much worse without SMARTDRV.

This is really annoying.  My latest suspicion, knowing Microsoft, is
that it kills SMARDRV when it sees QEMM386 as the mem manager, so my
next test will be to try without QEMM.

This is only one of several surprises w/ 3.1

-scott
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:12445 comp.os.os2.misc:11518
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Tastes gross/more fattening (repost (last attempt only got ~1 site))
Keywords: (hex encoded ASCII) 3A 2D 29
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:41:40 GMT
Organization: College of Computing

In article <1992Apr10.042229.19976@access.digex.com> terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.022751.21871@leland.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes:
>>In article <890139w.702661419@aucs> 890139w@aucs.acadiau.ca (John Weatherbie) writes:
>>
>>Reality check: most Win apps which UAE under Windows will do something
>>similar under OS/2 2.0.  The difference may be that OS/2 2.0 recovers more
>>gracefully; this has to be tested in the field first.  The fact is that
>>in most cases a UAE is saying that the application did something bad, typically
>>loading an invalid segment register, read/writing past the end, or
>>writing into a read-only place.  Changing the OS to OS/2 can't fix a bad
>>app (i.e. one that doesn't quite get its far arithmetic right).
>>
>
>>Admittedly, there are cases where conditions cause Windows itself to
>>UAE, such as low memory or programs passing bad parameters to Windows.
>>There are also a few bugs in the Windows kernel which cause UAEs.
>>Undoubtedly, there are bugs in Win 3.1's kernel and OS/2 2.0s.
>
>  First, I don't know of any condition where OS/2 would itself generate
>a protection fault.  It wouldn't have compiled under its own rules like
>that.  
>  Second, while Windows will "UAE" and sit or stop none of the other tasks
>under OS/2 will be affected.

Well, this is marginally related to this thread, but I can bring down
OS/2 big time with a program *included with it* (not like the above
example of a program written to crash it).  On my Gateway 386/33
(I'll post further specs if anyone's interested) either basic
or basica (I forget which) brings down the whole system with
a trap 000e.  This occurs only when run from a dos window/fullscreen.
It does not occur if you run it from an os/2 window (where it
automatically brings up its version of dos.  I don't get the happy
"show me registers" screen, I get a total system crash (worse
than a UAE, even).  Of course, I must be a pretty sick user since I'm
using basica under os/2, but that's another story.

-rick

"(And) I, don't like a thing about your mother,         | Rick Duggan
 and I, I hate your daddy's guts too (boo hoo),         | duggan@cc.gatech.edu
 (And) I, don't like a thing about your sister (no no), | CS1410 TA - Section C
 'cause I, I, I, think sex is overrated too."           | Office Hrs. (CC 103):
     - "Everything About You" by Ugly Kid Joe (1991)    | M 2-3/F 4:30-5:30 
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms