HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csci11ba@cl2.cl.uh.edu (451924952 NEWMAN, DANA FRANK)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: AAARRRGHH!!!!
Keywords: os2 installation
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: CSCI11BA@cl.uh.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Houston - Clear Lake
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1206@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>, tar@pa.reuter.COM (Dan Tarnower) writes...
>I have a similar PC, and had similar problems.  The only way I could
>get OS/2 to install was to disable the CPU cache.  The IBM rep said
>I would be able to re-enable the cache after the install, but that was
>a lie.  I shouldn't say he was actually lieing, because he didn't seem
>know enough to be sure if he was telling the truth.  However, it was
>clear that he was telling me what I wanted to hear.  I intend to call
>them back and complain that I still can't enable my cache.

I had EXACTLY the same problem, so I know how you feel.  I ordered a new
BIOS chip, and that solved every problem I ever had with OS/2.

(It also solved a LOT of other problems I had when I was running DOS apps,
also, like mysterious lockups from time to time when I was using TSR's.
I still use the same TSR's; but I havent had any problems with them since
I got the new chip installed.)
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:01:35 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

I have replaced the WIN 3/DOS 5 combo with first DRDOS 6 (overall improvement)
and then OS/2 with DRDOS as a dual boot option. 

I'm about to replace a lab full of MS-DOS 5 systems with DRDOS.  It's just a
better product, period.  The machines don't have enough memory or speed for
OS/2, or I'd consider that for a replacement.
 
-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: oh1ltm@nic.funet.fi (Esa Holmberg)
Subject: Re: cset/2 orders
Organization: Finnish University and Research Network (FUNET)
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 23:02:53 GMT

In <1992Aug15.004442.12326@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:

>Given that this very team use common front ends for several compilers, 
>a C++ compiler for os/2 2.0 may not be too far off -- if they want to.

	This makes me wonder, how far out a good Pascal compiler for
	OS/2 2.0 might be - preferably Turbo Pascal or compatible, of
	course :-) Anyone got a good guess?

>Eirik
 
 
        Esa
--
Esa Holmberg         Internet: ekho@ttl.fi          Elisa: Holmberg Esa TTL
OH1LTM      Packet: oh1ltm@oh1rbu.tku.fin.eu           fax:  +358-21-501330
X.400: C=fi, A=elisa, O=ttl, PN=esa holmberg     Diana-fax: (9102 21)501330
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:36:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <65824@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale) writes:
>
>So Pete, Are you saying that there won't be any bugs in NT.  That
>is certainly what you implied by by your statement I misquoted 
>(sorry :).  

      All non-trivial software has bugs.  Anyone who tells you
different is trying to sell you something.

					-Phil


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:57:25 GMT

In article <19AUG199215292756@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu> cvadrtbc@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.114009.20723@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes...
>>In article <18AUG199210153123@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvadrtbc@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan) writes:
>>> 
>>> What is IOPL?  I know it's a setting in the CONFIG.SYS but what does it do?
>>> What are the performance implications if I set it to no or yes?  Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Srikanth
>> 
>>Try typing "help iopl" at an OS/2 command prompt..........ain't os/2 great?
>
>Ok, how do I install the help so that I can type HELP IOPL? ;)  Thanks
>to the many people who replied it!  

Did you try running selective install?

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org     /EX
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 apps (was: I've seen NT...)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 09:42:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug13.163504.12284@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.123242.14212@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>>So, can someone point out whether some of these are actually out now that 
>>we're halfway into the third quarter?  I'll list some of the ones I actually
>>recognize from the 2Q92 list.  I've marked the ones I know are available
>>with a '*' in the first column...  (Oh, and OS/2 1.x apps don't count!)
>
>Well, an OS/2 1.x app running on OS/2 2.0 is still far better than
>running an Windows 3.x app on Windows 3.1 (or OS/2 2.0 WIN-OS2).
>Example: Microsoft Excel 3.0 (they don't make a 4.0 for OS/2, obviously)
>
>Kai Uwe Rommel

That's not the point though.  Excel 4.0 is better on Windows 3.1 than
Excel 3.0 is on OS/2 2.0.  One reason not to count OS/2 1.x apps is because
they are behind their current Windows counterparts.

- Mike
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG ( was Re: Release dates
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:24:36 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Aug13.134242.12778@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
> 
>>
>>  > From:  dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
>>  ...
>>  > >apps... to me this in inconceivable... why restrict yourself to
>>  > >Describe, Object Vision and free/shareware.  I find it hard to believe
>>  > >that anyone can't find at least one Microsoft app they really like
>>  > >(I very much like Word and Visual Basic).
>>  > 
>>  > There are a wealth of DOS apps that simple perform better than windows
>>  > apps.  
>>Name a DOS app that does word processing nicer than the WYSIWIG
>>approaches possible under Windows?
> 
> What is WYIWIG?  What you see is what I get?
>             ^
> But anyway, didn't I say dos apps look nicer than windows apps.  No.
> They don't look nicer.
> 
> I said that dos apps perform better, meaning that they run faster.
> Performance is more than just a pretty screen.  I can get more 
> done with wordperfect 5.1 on the average than just about any windows
> WYSIWYG word processor user.  True, I have worked in a computer lab
> for 4 years and had to help people daily with wordperfect problems,
> but once I learned the wordperfect system, convoluted as it is,
> I found out that it can work faster for an experienced user than
> the current crop of 'WYSIWYG' word processors.  Most of which only
> do a so-so job of showing you what a document will look like while
> working on it, which is hardly WYSIWYG.  
> 
> And yes, I have used windows 3.1 and just about every major windows
> wordprocessor.  No, they don't perform better for me.  Why does every
> one assume that if something is good for the neophyte user that it
> must be good for everyone?
	One thing we are forgetting, Windows programs run under OS/2 fine. 
I use Amipro for my wordprocessing (and word perfect for DOS) without any
problems.  


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 10:22:28 GMT

Danny Glasser writes:

> Besides, there were virtually no API changes between OS/2 1.21 and OS/2 1.3
> (as I recall).  The changes were LADDR support and better performance and
> usability (and bug fixes).

And Adobe Type Manager and REXX, as I recall.  Maybe some others that have
slipped my mind.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Pricing of apps
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 06:00:33 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug19.230040.26779@hellgate.utah.edu>  brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.040505.33422@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug14.005444.25731@hellgate.utah.edu>  brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.uta
> >> In general OS/2 products cost 10 to 50 percent more.
> >> Example, the Brief editor as shown in Programmer's Connection catalog:
> >>      DOS: $129
> >>      OS/2: $169
> >
> >An OS/2 product can be a lot better than a DOS product, as well.  If there
> >is no difference between the two, you can get the DOS version and run it in
> >VDM.
>
> You know if someone from Microsoft said a similar thing here, things would be
> very rough for them.  Do you believe that the higher prices come from the
> added value?

First, I've never used Brief, so let me state up front that I don't know
what capabilities are in either version.  But if the OS/2 version takes
advantage of OS/2's superior capabilities, then it could well be worth the
price difference.  As I said, if *you* think the added value (if any) is worth
the price difference, you can get the OS/2 version; if not, you can get the
DOS version.  The choice is up to you.

> I bought the 16-bit version of Brief
> on purpose... I'm told it runs under NT, and I'd like a good editor now.

Well, EPM is the best editor I know of, and it's free with OS/2.  (Of course,
I'm biased, being one of the developers.  :-)

In EPM you can start a command shell and have it linked to an edit window;
commands typed in the edit window will be executed and output from them
asynchronously inserted into the shell file (so you can switch to another
file in the ring while your compile is going on).  Try doing that with a
DOS editor...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: jc70@westend.VI.CMU.EDU (Joo C. Chung)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MACH vs NT
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:13:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BszBn8.yt.2
Reply-To: jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug13.172839.23786@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu  
(David Charlap) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.144014.272492@cs.cmu.edu> jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu  
writes:
> >No. This is not the same. With EMX you still have to recompile the programs  
to 
> >run under OS/2. The API layer (I believe they are refered to as servers)  
Pete  
> >is talking about allows you to run the binary without modification.
> 
> I'd be shocked if he meant that.  Unix binaries aren't even portable
> among other Unix boxes!  A Sun executable would have to be recompiled
> to run on a DecStation, etc.
> -- 
>    |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>   /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
>  ((|,)
>   ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.

Mach with a BSD Unix server is binary compatible with BSD Unix.



Joo
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:33:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.063621.3768@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.021516.28359@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Aug12.220152.20876@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>> Well, I'd like to use technology a little more advanced.  286 machines
                                                              ^^^
>>> are getting quite cheap these days.  They run windows.
>>
>>Well, I like to use technology a little more advanced - all *mine*
>>run OS/2.  :-)
>
>Mine run NT ;) 

Hey, everybody!  This must be an *official* *announcement* from a
*Microsoft* *spokesman* that NT will run on a 286!!!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:42:34 EDT
From: <BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who's problem \*are\* SVGA drivers?
 <Bt0BnK.67@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Aug15.163232.6665@infonode.ingr.com>
 <1992Aug18.163234.5088@njitgw.njit.edu>

If anyone is interested in making any enhancements to OS/2's video drivers,
like writing a generic 800x600/16 seamless driver, you can request a DDK
with sample source to VSVGA.SYS, BVHSVGA, and the 16-bit VGA PM driver.
(sample code to 32-bit is not ready yet, because there might still be fixes
put in the 32-bit VGA)All you need to do is call the Developer's Assistance
Program, and ask for the 16-bit video DDK.
Don't be shy about calling!  IBM has not been good about initiating contacts
with IHVs, but they won't care that you're not Trident or whoever, just tell
them you work for X universityor company, and want to write drivers!

I'm sorry, don't have the number for the developers assitance program handy,
put maybe someone could append it in a reply to make it convenient!

Thanks!
Bernie Thompson -- PSU
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:01:28 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug20.115325.3941@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
> Why would they care about OS/2's ad campaign -- until that "June" "CSD"
> gets out, letting customers try OS/2 is probably the best plan to not
> get them to stay. :-)

Hasn't slowed me down.....

> In all seriousness... with the exception of the fact their DDK seems
> to have slipped, I've seen no indication they're not going to be on time.
> Why are you convenienced that NT is trash?

I don't think NT is trash. But, it uses the Win3.1 interface, which is nowhere
even *close* to being as good as the WPS. 

Also.....Microsoft is starting to move into hardware.....having reached a
dominant position in software, they are ready to move over - since very soon -
unless OS/2 takes off in a huge way - there will be NO ALTERNATIVE to MS. 
 
I prefer to support a good product in order to maintain some competition. A
lot of my corporate clients are saying:"We want to a totally Microsoft
shop.......no other vendors products will be purchased - where there is an MS
equivalent." 
 
Most of these people are technically illiterate. This is the '90's desktop
version of "If you buy IBM, you can't go wrong."
 
They are repeating the errors of the past. This is the same position IBM was
in 15 years ago and the customers paid - and paid for alowing it to happen.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:10:08 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug14.152055.391@novell.com> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
> 
> The reason I don't have much confidence in NT is because
> its targeted for "High-End" systems, and I feel NT will have a hard time
> in other platforms.  It may take over High-End PCs, but OS/2 doesn't need
> high enders, nor does Win 3.1, but OS2 is superior to Win 3.1.  

That is exactly the same conclusion that I - and many others, it seems - have
come too.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:34:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug18.131240.15526@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>In a previous article, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) says:
>
>>In article <1992Aug14.195641.5478@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>>
>>>Pete, 
>>>
>>>God damn it, Microsoft never put up a fight to keep OS/2.  They just tried
><rant deleted>
>
>
>>Ahhh, excuse me, were you there.  Were you in any of the meetings about
>>the settlement, or the handing of OS/2 over to IBM.  
>
>So what actually did happen?

Would you believe me if I told you? ;)

Let's just say it was an unfortunate disagreement
in which both sides were responsable, but it was
more the situation.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: asp@trail.sharpstone.com (Alexandre Sasha Polozoff)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 21:01:44 CST
Organization: Sharpstone Trail Productions - Austin Texas USA
Reply-To: asp@trail.sharpstone.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Aug08.015618.25110@microsoft.com> (comp.os.os2.advocacy), petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> When the Mac system software starts supporting Ethernet, FDDI, Token ring,
> etc.  on it's own without any external vendors, then you can talk.
> 
> peteks@microsoft.com
> My Opinions...
> 

You are behind the times my friend!  Apple provides EtherTalk and
TokenTalk.  They also have hardware for same.  


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Polozoff      512/218-1178       Internet    asp@trail.sharpstone.com
Sharpstone Trail Productions          Compuserve  73467,252
Austin, Texas USA                     OSI Network Management Products                        
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4175 comp.os.os2.misc:27644
From: kjb@calmasd.prime.com (Ken Brucker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:08:22 GMT
Organization: Computervision - A Division of Prime Computer

In article <1992Aug17.201353.3278@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
> In article <SXMRP.20.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
> 
>>** Although those who don't need it will have to pay for it.
> 
> Please explain this.  It costs IBM a fixed amount to write the software.
> Distribution on CD-ROM means it doesn't cost them extra disks.  I would pay
> the cost of the disks to get TCP-IP.  But I can't justify several hundred
> dollars so that I can run TCP-IP unless I am making money from it.  The fact
> is, I am a home user, and all of my network access is for hobby.  I would
> like to run TCP-IP over Amateur Packet radio using IBM's TCP-IP package, but
> I don't have that kind of money to spend.  IBM's package is inaccessable to
> the typical home user who, in my opinion, is likely to have a spare machine
> or laptop which he will want to network on occasion.  It is too bad that I
> can't use IBM TCP-IP, since it would cost me more than it is worth to me.

Let's put this into a little more of an extreme...DEC is distributing nearly
their entire product suite on a set of 7 CDRoms right now.  By your logic I
should be able to pay for the cost of the 7 disks to gain access to almost all
of their products since it cost them a fixed amount for the development and the
distribution isn't costing extra.

IBM, like DEC wrote the software with the intent of making a profit on it. 
I'm not saying that I agree with their pricing structure, but I do agree that
as an end user I should have to pay for functionality that I want.

Ken

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**  Ken Brucker -- VMS/Ultrix Systems Programmer/Mangler -- Computer Vision
 **  kjb@calmasd.Prime.COM  
  **  Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:22:41 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <ANDRZEJ.92Aug14233902@bcars268.bnr.ca> andrzej@bnr.ca (Andrzej Bieszczad) writes:
> 
> Well, many do. Smalltalk-80, FrameMaker, Mathematica. DOS boxes are
> not important, since they are much better under OS/2 2.0. I agree with
> the original post that IBM should have provided full support for
> Windows. They should have supported SVGA as well. They do not have to
> start at the same point as Win3.0 did, since IBM is not the first -
> they should use mistakes other made to learn.

Win3.1 OLE and parameter checking (fixed 60% of UAE's) are included in
Win-OS/2.

> As for Microsoft, Smalltalk-80/Win3.0 does not run under Win3.1
> and the statement on the package said that all Win3.0 applications
> will run (that is why I returned it to Microsoft).

If OS/2 supports Win3.1, then a good number of Windows 3.0 apps will no longer
run under Win-OS/2.......so it isn't a matter of deciding whether or not to
cut a finger off....it's WHICH ONE do you cut off.

> 
> Hopefully, the "fall" (???) CSD will fulfil everybody's dreams. If it
> does not, there might be 500,000 copies of OS/2 ready to be upgraded
> to Windows NT ;-) There is no hope for WIN-OS/2 running 386 Enh, though.
> What a pity, I have to stick to dual boot.

I doubt Smalltalk and Mathematica 2.0 have sold anything *like* 500,000
copies. Even if they have.......is everyone who bought them running OS/2?
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?