HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo )
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:01:13 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43

In article <1992Apr8.204645.15482@cis.ohio-state.edu> chawdry@cis.ohio-state.edu (rehan nisar chawdry) writes:
>
> On a 386, you have to be all but blind not to consider (read CONSIDER)
> OS/2 2.0.  I'm no fan of IBM and have never bought an IBM product, but for $49
> I couldn't resist.  Plus, even if I don't want it, Windows 3.1 and its apps
> will be able to run on the same screen as OS/2 (by June 92, update is free).
> My all-time favorite program Ami Pro will be converted into a multithreaded,
> multitasking monster word processing app.  Stacker will be available soon, and
> so will a 32-bit SVGA graphic engine.  I just hope OS/2 is closer to my
> expectations than Windows 3.1 was.

> -- Rehan --

Well...before you consider...

According to InfoWorld:

OS/2 2.0 will *not* be compatable with Windows 3.1
OS/2 2.0 will *not* support SVGA or XGA graphics modes. (The
	 above poster's comments about OS/2 supporting a 32-bit 
	 SVGA engine, notwithstanding.)
OS/2 2.0 Windows emulation will support only one Windows application
         per Window, and they are several orders of magnitude slower
	 than just running in Windows. You can switch OS/2 2.0 to
	 full screen Windows mode, and your Windows performance
	 goes way up.
OS/2 2.0 will not support full-blown pre-emptive multitasking for
         another 12-18 months. (Not sure what they meant by this,
	 but it didn't smell right.) At that time, Windows NT
	 will be on the scene.

Moral: If you are buying OS/2 for OS/2...great. Do it..multithreading
       is a good thing, and OS/2 has it. If you are buying OS/2 
       'cuz you want to run mostly Windows applications in OS/2's
       PM...you might want to rethink that.





--
 - Rob DeMillo			| Internet: 	 demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu
   MIT Lincoln Lab 		| Also Internet: rjd@brown.cs.edu
   Weather Sensing - Group 43	| Reality: 617-981-2105 (office)

"Operation Goofy now in effect!"
	--- Tom Servo, "Gamera vs. Gaos," Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: HF.RME@forsythe.stanford.edu (Bob Elmore)
Subject: Need help quickly with video purchase
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:54:32 GMT

I need advise on a video card purchase.

In a 486/33 system we'll be running both windows and CAD.  The
question is this - Which card will give better performance, a
TIGA 34010 based card or one of the newer S3 accelerator based
cards?  Assuming drivers can be had for my software how do they
compare?  I find comparisons between different cards in the various
magazines but can't find any info comparing these two types.  Any
help is appreciated, as we are about to make a decision rather
quickly.

Bob Elmore
hf.rme@forsythe
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: Why Windows is a better bet than OS/2 2.0...
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:24:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.201637.27169@eng.umd.edu> toddf@eng.umd.edu (Todd Fine) writes:
>
  <stuffs citing the Washington Post .. deleted ..>


Go ahead. Remember Multics on your OS text? Have you played with Multics?
Me neither. Those *BIG* promises will be good stuffs to be taught on
THEORETICAL Operating Systems. Like Intel's iAPX 432, great but .....



Wen-Chun Ni, supporter of slim-powerful-universal OS (UNIX Sys 7.0 & OS/2 2.0).
From: ruben@pollux.cs.uga.edu (<== FireIce ==>)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: VGA drivers win 3.1
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:32:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Originator: ruben@pollux


Checking the list on the supplemental disk library list I ran
into a couple of drivers for VGA (320x200, 256 col.), (16 grays), (palletized).
All of them are compressed into one file which I don't remember its name.
If there is anybody who can grab this thing (and maybe some other goodies)
without any problem and put it into wuarchive or cica or what may be is
better for me uuencoded and mail it to me.  I don't know if it is legal,
but they wrote somewhere these files are free and they are in a BBS after
all so I don't see any conflicts. So far, only people with POINT 1 can use
them and they bought it.

Anyway, post any progress.  By the way, POINT 1 is really fast, but what you
expect from so many months of testing and code improvement.  So far, for
$50 or $40 I think is a real bargain, still not perfect(impossible goal),
but impressive if you compare what you had 2 years ago for the same money.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ruben Robles                         =
				     =
				     =
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
From: frankp@ctron.com (Frank Perreault)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Bummed about Truetype
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:35:30 GMT
Reply-To: frankp@olympus.ctron.com (Frank Perreault)
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

In article <0qFViB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
>I installed Windows 3.1 yesterday and tried printing some documents using
>the TrueType fonts. It was taking about four minutes a page. After
>fumbling around and checking it, I found that it apparently sends out
>a bitmap instead of downloading the font for my printer. I checked the
>Laserjet drivers and it does the same thing for all the HPs before the
>Series II.
>
>I got on Genie and read some articles in the Microsoft Knowledgebase.
>Apparently Truetype will only download fonts if the printer supports
>downloading partial fonts.
>
>I'm totally bummed about this since it makes Truetype pretty much
>useless for me for any document over a couple of pages.
>
>Why is Truetype set up this way? It seems to be that it would be better
>to at least have the option of downloading the entire font if I wanted
>to. I've found that downloading full fonts is faster that sending out a
>bitmap, even on one page documents.
>
           etc. etc.

Not being an employee of Microsoft I can't give the definitive answer but
I believe the reason behind sending down the bitmaps is because of the
ability to scale fonts. If Windows (or ATM) couldn't handle font scaling
and thereby ship the image via bitmap down to the printer, you would have
to have a font for every style and pitch size that you wanted to use. I
don't know about you but I don't have a 1G hard drive.

Now as for the reason of why they only download fonts if the printer supports 
a partial download I can see the reason being that you would spend alot a
time downloading fonts for characters that you would never print with.
Granted, shipping a bitmap is not a fast affair but as you can see in all
the literature for Windows word processors they really advertise the fact
that you can put loads of fonts on one page using all sorts of sizes.

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.

--- Frank ---
From: spero@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Spero Koulouras)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:54:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Freelance for Windows
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms

On Tuesday,  4/14,  the Lotus National Account Manager for
Hewlett-Packard was performing a demo of Freelance at our
site.  When asked about problems sending output to plotters
the response boiled down to:

  Lotus relied on the device drivers supplied with 
  Windows and did not write any drivers of thier own.
  The HP plotter driver does not work well,  so 
  customers using Windows 3.0 are out of luck.  The
  drivers supplied with Windows 3.1 MAY fix the
  problem.

Regards,

  Spero Koulouras

DISCLAIMER:  This statement is not an official statement from,  nor
does it represent an official position of,  Hewlett-Packard Co.
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: dyoung@netcom.com (David Young)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:25:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <1992Apr14.194020.17446@ncsu.edu>, by linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville):

>  I know NT will have C2, etc

PCWeek reported in the 4-13-92 (yesterday's) issue that a Microsoft
spokesperson said that C2 Security will NOT be in the early releases
of NT.
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  David M. Young   |                    |  Real airplanes have two wings |
| dyoung@netcom.com |                    |  and round engines.    - Anon  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Our life is frittered away by detail...Simplify, simplify.   - Thoreau  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: The new Cica
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:16:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.shabcINNo9s
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: monsoon.berkeley.edu

Cica is up, but many machines won't know where it is.  I had to 
ftp to cica.cica to find the numerical address.  Would someone
post it for others?  I would, but I'm logged in on a single windows
from home, and the address is in my other account.
jorourke
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:14:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.142857.27595@alw.nih.gov> donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>Another perspective on why to stick to Windows.  I have 5 IBM Model 80
>PS/2's with 2 mb ram and 80 mb hard drives.  These machines are perfectly
>adequate Windows platforms.  To upgrade to OS/2 2.0 for these machines
>would require 4 mb ram ($600.00) and at least another 80 mb hard disk
>($800.00). 

Good reasons.... but I just can't see how you are surviving Windows
with only 2 mb.  I couldn't get a DOS and a Windows program going with
reasonable speed without upgrading from 2 to 3 mb.  The disk activity
really slowed things down.  And.. Win3.1 has not speeded (sped?)
things up noticably either.  By the way, if you ever do try OS/2 and
use the HPFS file system, I'm told you should have 6 mb or more.

($600 for an additional 2mb ram??)

-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

"Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical" - Yogi
From: F0O@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:23:06 GMT
 <92105.200152RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> <cchapman.54@matd.gatech.edu>
 <1992Apr16.181321.11803@muddcs.claremont.edu>
Organization: Penn State University


   If I would use OS/2 as my operating environment to program windows apps,
would I recieve any errors?  Can I program for windows under os/2 without
buying anything new?  Right now I'm using TPW.

                                                            [Tim]
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: <None>
From: furlong@mdcbbs.com (Carey Furlong)
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:17:21 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: lems

In article <890139w.702661419@aucs>, 890139w@aucs.acadiau.ca (John Weatherbie) writes:
> teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (Toby Everett) writes:
> Any idiot who thinks that Windows is an operating system needs a kick to 
>the head.  An operating system doesn't require another operating system to 
>be installedto work.  Does Windows do this, didn't the last time I checked. 
>Maybe it's in
> the manual, let me check.  Nope not there either, must be in a txt file. Hmm 
> don't see it.  Must not be able to do it. Guess it's not an operating sytem,
> everyone hear that, IT IS NOT AN OPERATING SYSTEM!!. DOS is an operating 
>system,
> OS/2 is a great operating system, Windows is a program that runs under OS/2 
>and DOS. Get it right!!! Buy OS/2 and forget the term UAE.
> john
>   
  Sun OpenWindows is a GUI that runs on top of Sun Unix. DecWindows is a
  GUI that runs on top of VMS. Both OpenWindows and DecWindows are often
  refered to as "operating systems." So, your point is easily debatable. 
  If an operating system is defined as not running under anything else,
  then the ROM BIOS could be regarded as the only operating system on a
  pc (which is ridiculous).

  Your last point was the big stinker, though. I don't have OS/2, but in
  spite of that I have not seen a UAE in years. What I have seen is *lots*
  of software to run.
                             "Excellent Kassim. You have served me well"
                             ---------- Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves ---
       ---- Carey ----
    Carey Furlong, Huntington Beach, CA; Compu$erve 70531,2753;
    Prodigy TXST34A
From: martell@ucs.ubc.ca (Jonn Martell)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 and Stacker, NOT!!
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:47:17 GMT
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services

In article <1992Apr7.211321.27934@alw.nih.gov> donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>I found that the new Windows 3.1 disk cach doesn't work well with
>my hard disk setup: a ST225 mfm + ST296N SCSI and stacker.  If you
>are having problems with Stacker "GET RID OF FASTDISK" and your
                                              ^^^^^^^^^
>problems will go away.  (They did for me.)  I reported this as
>a problem under the beta but it must be something they missed in the
>final release.
>--
>Donald A. Lehn, Ph.D.                    


FASTDISK - what's that? Never seen it... 8-)
FASTOPEN - probably, should not be used with Windows 3.0 nor 3.1

Humm, again mis-information from DAL...  That's two post in a row -
not bad for today Donald...  8-)

[sorry Folk, but some people are determined to flood the net with garbage -
they have to be stopped!;-) (BTW the NTWIN32.PM4 mention in a PS file does
not mean that MS is delvolping a PM 32 bit for NT! It only means that MS 
was using PM to do a Win 32 promo.  The funny pact was that there was a
whole thread that was formed based on the bad info... sad but true...]

[90M BTU TORCH OFF] 
[PILOT ON] 
Reply by email - especially if it's useless info!
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:12988 comp.windows.ms.programmer:5513
From: izio@idea.sublink.org (Maurizio Festi)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Info about SERIUS PROGRAMMER ?
Keywords: serius, tools, language
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:19:48 GMT
Organization: Idea Cooperativa Informatica scrl - Rovereto (TN) - ITALY

I need some information about the product SERIUS PROGRAMMER (a language):
tecnical features, prices and the availability on different operating
systems (DOS, OS/2, APPLE, UNIX, etc.) and on different hardware.

I do not recive thes newsgroup, please reply me at izio@idea.sublink.org .

Thanks in advance.

 ______
| Maurizio Festi (izio@idea.sublink.org).
| Idea Informatica Scrl  |  via G. Prati 16  |  38068 Rovereto (TN) - ITALY |
| Tel: +039-0464-438538       Fax: +039-0464-438938                   ______|
-- 
 ______
| Maurizio Festi (izio@idea.sublink.org).
| Idea Informatica Scrl  |  via G. Prati 16  |  38068 Rovereto (TN) - ITALY |
| Tel: +039-0464-438538       Fax: +039-0464-438938                   ______|
From: phil@inferno.peri.com (Philip Restuccia)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Desktop Manager recommendations sought
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:24:56 GMT
Organization: Periphonics Corp.

Hi all!

I am looking for opinions/recommendations/condemnations/etc. on desktop managers
for Win 3.1.  I am currently using NDW 1.0 (was using it with Win 3.0; haven't
tried it yet with 3.1), but thought I would hold up on upgrading to NDW 2.0
(does Symantec offer an upgrade option to registered users?).  I have played
a bit with WinTools, and have looked over the description on the box of HP's
NewWave 4.0; both of these look like they would give NDW a run for its money.

So: anyone out there have anything good/bad to say about any of these desktop
managers?  Which one should I plunk my money down for? NDW 2.0, WinTools, or
HP NewWave 4.0?

Thanks in advance for all responses.  You can (try to) email your responses to
me, but then I think that this information might be valuable to others on the
net, so maybe posting would be a better bet.  Again, thanks.


						Philip Restuccia
						Periphonics Corp.
						...!inferno!phil
From: daw50509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Don A. Walthers)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Paradise 512k driver for win3.1?
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:55:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr11.225550.28638
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


Does anyone know if paradise released a 800*600*256
driver for win3.1. I called gateway2000 and they said
that the file should be on their bbs but I can't find 
the words paradise or win3.1 in the index. If its on 
there, what file is it? Better yet, is it available
from an ftp site?
thanks

don walthers
daw50509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 PC speaker MM driver?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:44:30 GMT
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I don't have a modem.  Do you think you can put it on an FTP server, or
if not, can you mail it to me? 

Thanks in advance!! :-)

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: cvance@vesta.unm.edu (Chad Vance)
Subject: Adlib under Win 3.1?!?!?!?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 05:54:37 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

What is the Adlib driver under Windows 3.1 usefor if you can't use
the .wav files?  WHy can a SIMPLE built in PC speaker use the .wav
files but the Adlib can't?  I don't get it!  

Or am I installing the Adlib driver wrong?  HELP!!!!

		Hasta,
			Chad


-- 
Tangerine Dream-Phil Collins-Steve Roach--Genesis-Pink Floyd-Boston-Steve Vai
Steve Winwood-INXS-Bon Jovi-Air Supply-Mariah Carey-Breathe-John Tesh-Kenny G
Def Leppard-Yes-Debbie Gibson-Information Society-Midnight Oil-Madonna-Enigma
			CVANCE@TRITON.UNM.EDU
From: millerje@CS.ColoState.EDU (Jeff Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Paradise driver for Win 3.1?
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:10:17 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

I have the paradise driver set that came with my card, and when I install
it for Win3.1, I get an error like "Cannot allocate block at B000, please
exclude this from your memory manager"...I do and then get another error
and so on until I have no upper memory free!

Where can I get Paradise drivers (1024x768x16 or 640x480x256
- I'm use the 800x600x16 Windows driver now) for Win3.1?

-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
| "Nuke the unborn gay whales!" |  millerje@cs.colostate.edu  |  Jeff Miller  |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
From: thomas@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Thomas Plass)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 -> fuck it!!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:29:50 GMT
	<25MAR199212413765@lims05.lerc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Apr1.000442.748@debet.nhh.no> <1160@ais.com>
Reply-To: thomas@uk.ac.ed.cogsci
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh
In-reply-to: bruce@ais.com's message of 7 Apr 92 00:39:21 GMT

In article <1160@ais.com> bruce@ais.com writes:


>  chips as you might expect but PAL CPU support chips).  Apparently 3.1
>  happened to exercise the faulty chips a bit more strenuously.  

  You can say that again. 3.1 finally found a faulty chip in my machine
  that 3.0. couldn't care less about.  I wish I could, too. 

     
      Is there any low-level diag software about, preferably ftp-able?

  
  Windows exits fatally claiming to have suffered a "Memory Parity
  error".(Yes, I am in the process of swapping my memory in and out to
  eliminate the foul SIMM (is a SIMM to blame in the frist place??),
  but that's tedious to say the least)


>  (BTW:  Whatever you think of the "Windows as OS" debate there is little
>  doubt that it is system software of some flavor.  

  I think I agree as far as Enhanced mode is concerned.

>  Bruce C. Wright


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: hu@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Min Hu)
Subject: help need in using faxmodem under win3.0
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Distribution: University of Toronto
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:29:03 GMT

      Recently I bought an Aceex9624 internal FaxModem. It works fine
under DOS.
      But under window3, it does not work for both terminal and doswindow.
Plus, if I use window first and then use modem, it does not work also.
I have to reboot(reset) the system again to make modem works. It seems
to me that the communication port for modem is disabled somehow by 
window. 
     I used com4 for my modem. Com1 is used by mouse. And I use bitcom
communication software. (By the way, I have tried com2, com3, they do
not work for me)
     Anybody out there, know how to solve this problem. Your help will
be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 

			MIN HU 
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: dorsai@iear.arts.rpi.edu (gregory d moncreaff)
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 install warnings
Organization: the committee for asethetic deletions
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:34:41 GMT

In article <31290001@hpspkla.spk.hp.com> bollard@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Lee M. Bollard) writes:
>I installed Windows 3.1 last night.  During installation I got two
>warning message screens:
>
> The following file conflicts with the version already on your system
>     File: OLESVR.DLL
> Description: (unknown)
> The new version of the file is a different file type from the
> currently installed verison.
>
>I got the same message later for the file OLECLI.DLL.
>Does anyone know what these files are or why I got the warning messages?
>
they are the old OLE (object linking and embedding) client/server 
dynamic link libraries that most likely were written to your disk
when you installed Word for Windows v2. Works for windows might
also do the same, though i haven't played with it. You got the
message because the files are dated earlier than the Win3.1 file
time stamps.
From: kanderse@cvbnet.prime.com (Kurt Andersen x3056 5-2)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: HELP! Win 3.1 dies in setup mode
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:08:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computervision Inc.

In article <1992Apr7.052129.28470@beach.csulb.edu>, bwong@beach.csulb.edu (Bradley Wong) writes:
|> I can NOT get past the 93% second diskette setup mode where win 3.1
|> goes from DOS setup to windows setup. 
|> 
|> All I get is:
|> 
|>    Standard Mode: Fault in MS-DOS extender
|>    EC=0000 CS=0053 IP=232F ...
|> 
I get the same error Error.  The error actual comes from program
WINDOS/SYSTEM/DOSX.EXE.  I can't find any documentation on what
this program does (I think it is a dos extender/memory manager used
for starting windows during setup).  The 3.0 version of DOSX works fine.
Also when I remove the 3.0 DOSX, Windows 3.0 works fine without it.

I'm using a Gateway 486 (33Mhz genisis/microcronics) with 8m memory.
300 Meg ESDI harddisk.  I'm currently using DRDOS 6.0 with QEMM 6.0.

Any help would be appreciated.

-Kurt