jeffh@hplsla.HP.COM (Jeff Harrell) (01/26/89)
I've been playing with VP/ix (that's about all you can do with it)
for about 3 months. It's sort-of DOS sort-of ZENIX. The problems
I've found to be a pain include:
1) Support- I do not like being placed on hold for 15-30
minutes only to be told I can get an "appointment"
in two to three days. It's been my experience that
the person on the other end of the line ( the one
that calls back in a couple of days ) knows less
about VP/ix than I do.
2) ONLY 1 FLOPPY- This seems to be a BUG because it isn't
documented in the manuals. The manuals
show examples of a vpix.cnf file that uses
more than one floppy-so, WHATS UP!
3) IT'S BUGGY- I've found a number or "unexplainable" lock=ups,
missing key strokes, sluggish keyboard response,
(what the heck happened?) stuff...
4) DOS APPLICATIONS DON'T WORK- Several DOS pplications don't!
Try saving a "FIRST CHOICE" file for example.
Or try using 800X600 drivers..
5) THINGS GET CHANGED- The 8386 (B1 stepping) bug work-around
stops working after running VP/ix. Granted,
this is an Intel problem- but, the fix stops
working!
6) HUMAN INTERFACE- My wife uses an XT at school. We've got a
20MHz 386, 4MB ram, 80MB disk, 20MHz 80387
and a Paradise VGA+ card with a multi-sync
monitor. In VP/ix she complains that our
system is SLOWER than the XT she uses at
school???
7) SERIAL MOUSE- It works- off and on.
8) TIME OF DAY- runs slowwwwwwww.
I WANT to use VP/ix! I like VP/ix! But, damm, is it gonna get fixed?
I started with the controlled release under XENIX 2.2.1 and now have
VP/ix 1.1 with XENIX 2.3.1. My 30 day free support (following the
controlled release) is near it's end- AM I STUCK WITH THIS MESS...
Jeff (Spectra Software) Harrell
(206) 927-9268
Oh ya- My boss and HP didn't even know I sent this note- let alone agree
to it's contents. bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (01/27/89)
In article <5980005@hplsla.HP.COM> jeffh@hplsla.HP.COM (Jeff Harrell) writes: > >I've been playing with VP/ix (that's about all you can do with it) >for about 3 months. It's sort-of DOS sort-of ZENIX. The problems >I've found to be a pain include: I'm going to apologize in advance for repeating Jeff's complaints in their entirety, but my remarks would not make much sense if I abbreviated his. I am following up his article, but illustrating that SCO isn't the only culprit. I have SCO VP/ix but have never tried it, ditto ISC; I use AT&T VP/ix, aka Simul-Task 386. It's no better, where indicated, it's worse. > 1) Support- I do not like being placed on hold for 15-30 > minutes only to be told I can get an "appointment" > in two to three days. It's been my experience that > the person on the other end of the line ( the one > that calls back in a couple of days ) knows less > about VP/ix than I do. This is not a sarcastic remark, SCO has better hold music than AT&T, at least for my taste. Toll free hold is more frustrating than LD hold because with the latter you lose your patience with the LD long before you become upset with the vendor who has you on hold. I didn't buy SCO SoftCare because during the 30 day trial period, THREE times I got the wrong "analyst" who apologized, profusely (more profusely each time) for being the wrong analyst and wondering aloud why she was misassigned each time to the same problem. In SCO's defense and hers, I certainly did know more about my problem than she did, but she knew a hell of a lot more about her specialty than I do. It wasn't her fault, it was some nameless entity in SCO. Contrast this, if you will with the AT&T "Hot Line". There you get to train every phone answerer that the lights are on, cords plugged in, OS booted and running (each punctuated by toll free hold) when some creature refuses to allow you to proceed to the next rookie until you provide a serial number from a 6386WGS (when you are calling about a software problem). You offer to provide a software serial number and now you don't even get more toll free hold, "non-standard hardware, we don't support that". There are humans at SCO and the problems Jeff describes abound in AT&T VP/ix. You can wear SCO out and eventually get someone who can help. I can't criticize Jeff for losing patience, but you can't wear out AT&T any more than you can make them fulfill their printed warranty. > 2) ONLY 1 FLOPPY- This seems to be a BUG because it isn't > documented in the manuals. The manuals > show examples of a vpix.cnf file that uses > more than one floppy-so, WHATS UP! I've got the same thing with Simul-Task 386, but with "non-standard hardware", I'm sunk too. It's endemic to VP/ix, not unique to SCO. So what's SCO to do? Should they throw their weight around? When AT&T doesn't, why should they/how can they? I'll not stick up for SCO on this one, but it seems that they have taken a page from the Microport book of customer support; i.e. "if it is the supplier's problem, ignore it 'cause we can't fix it". Admittedly, neither SCO nor AT&T has the science as well refined as Microport, they don't preach from the same page when it's from their own craft, but they're learning. > 3) IT'S BUGGY- I've found a number or "unexplainable" lock=ups, > missing key strokes, sluggish keyboard response, > (what the heck happened?) stuff... Try AT&T on for size. They offer UNIX(r) 386 Vr3.1, followed fewer than six months later by Vr3.2, new VP/ix and everything. The 3.1 registered owners don't get notified of the upgrade opportunity until after the upgrade offer expires. The result? "Tough tittie, buy a new one..." Report the bugs Jeff describes? "Sorry, we don't support that any more, buy a new one". > 4) DOS APPLICATIONS DON'T WORK- Several DOS pplications don't! > Try saving a "FIRST CHOICE" file for example. > Or try using 800X600 drivers.. Wow! Gosh! I posted my first impressions of VP/ix and I feel like a fool. I waxed locquacious about how well it works on serial terminals doing DOS like things. How little (shudder!) did I realize how poorly it would do on native DOS things on the console. I've not tried anything whatsoever that I wanted to do that would work correctly, yet they all work just fine on the same machine under native DOS. It's a killer on a serial terminal tho'. > 5) THINGS GET CHANGED- The 8386 (B1 stepping) bug work-around > stops working after running VP/ix. Granted, > this is an Intel problem- but, the fix stops > working! Do you suppose that's related to my mouse problem? The first time I invoke VP/ix (Simul-Task 386) following a hardware reset/reboot, the mouse works just like you think it should. Subsequent tries? Zilch. I've posted to comp.sys.att, sent to my own AT&T PC 63xx mailing list, and I get empathy. I call the National System Support Center and I get the third degree about why I don't have a 6386WGS. > 6) HUMAN INTERFACE- My wife uses an XT at school. We've got a > 20MHz 386, 4MB ram, 80MB disk, 20MHz 80387 > and a Paradise VGA+ card with a multi-sync > monitor. In VP/ix she complains that our > system is SLOWER than the XT she uses at > school??? Ditto, I have a local dial up user who reported that he was happy that I had VP/ix so he could get the look and feel of a '386. When I noticed that he hadn't logged in for a while I quizzed him. He said (after some coaxing) that he didn't have the time to spend looking at but not feeling the '386. > 7) SERIAL MOUSE- It works- off and on. > > 8) TIME OF DAY- runs slowwwwwwww. Mine runs fast. > I WANT to use VP/ix! I like VP/ix! But, damm, is it gonna get fixed? >I started with the controlled release under XENIX 2.2.1 and now have >VP/ix 1.1 with XENIX 2.3.1. My 30 day free support (following the >controlled release) is near it's end- AM I STUCK WITH THIS MESS... Well it could be worse, you could have bought AT&T for the same price and have gotten 90 days of non-support... Anyone who has read this far is toturing themselves. I'm not flaming SCO, AT&T, or even Microport (though I've done that in the past). I'm pointing out that Jeff is stuck, I'm stuck, SCO's stuck, AT&T's stuck. The difference is that SCO and AT&T have more resources to apply to getting Phoenix and ISC to get-it-right than Jeff and I do. Jeff's frustration (and mine) is that here we sit, $500 (hard to come by for a mere mortal) poorer and neither AT&T nor SCO can make their vendor meet a minimal functionality spec. Is it hardware? I doubt it, Jeff's mouse doesn't work, nor does mine. I'll bet he's got the same EGA problems I do, I'd be amazed if he had the same EGA. We have the same floppy problems, I'll bet this terminal (it's mine) that we have the same floppy/wini controller. AT&T is big enough to know better and arrogant enough to not care. SCO is good enough to know better and too small to be so arrogant so they're just unconscious. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) (01/27/89)
In article <5980005@hplsla.HP.COM>, jeffh@hplsla.HP.COM (Jeff Harrell) writes: > > I WANT to use VP/ix! I like VP/ix! But, damm, is it gonna get fixed? > I started with the controlled release under XENIX 2.2.1 and now have > VP/ix 1.1 with XENIX 2.3.1. My 30 day free support (following the > controlled release) is near it's end- AM I STUCK WITH THIS MESS... I AGREE! When *IS* it going to get fixed? With the price that SCO charges for the product (a commercial $$$), shouldn't we expect more results? Shouldn't we hear something from SCO and Interactive Systems as to what progress is being made? I have had my 1.1 release of VP/ix since September and, while a big improvement over the Controlled Release, it still is extremely choppy and prone to failure. For instance, if I am running an application, tell it to print, then go and P)rinter Flush, my keyboard either locks in the SHIFT mode or it ignores the function keys UNTIL I hit a few buttons like NUM LOCK or switch to another virtual terminal and back again (you know, ALT-F2, etc.). This happened on another system I know of. This doesn't happen everytime, but with all the key pounding I have to do to get it to work, my colleagues are less forgiving and persistent and give up when it locks up. They then insist I boot the DOS partition so they can get their work done without the interruptions of VP/ix. They are NOT computer oriented people. They know enough to run their particular application, and that is *ALL* they WANT to know. They should not have to put up with this, especially for the amount paid and the way SCO presented VP/ix. Don't get me wrong, I think VP/ix is a wonderful concept and I really like the program. But I MUST be critical of the fact that SCO is marketting the product as a commercial piece of software, and it just doesn't deliver. It comes close (sometimes), but for the applications I need to run on it, close doesn't work at all, so for me, it is lost money. My point is, shouldn't we expect and see more from SCO in terms of getting VP/ix whipped into shape??? I am afraid that unless they get on the ball, future versions will be so heavily scrutinized by people that some won't even want to take the risk of buying is ($$$$) and finding that can't do the job for them. I mean, why else buy it at that price? Would you spend $500 for a DOS word processor that had the reliability factor of VP/ix and use it for processing law documents for law firm or a city court? SCO, please tell us what is going on! They should either change their posture on VP/ix, OR get the thing updated and fixed in a much more timely manner and keep us updated at to where they are at. Some of us who bought the product last Spring are *STILL* waiting for SCO to come through. Like I said, it is a great product idea, but would YOU run it in a commercial office environment? Isn't that what SCO has in mind? Sorry this got so long, but you know how it is.... ;-) Mark. -- Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!" USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________ VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co. DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USA
jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) (01/27/89)
In article <5980005@hplsla.HP.COM>, jeffh@hplsla.HP.COM (Jeff Harrell) writes: > 1) Support- I do not like being placed on hold for 15-30 > minutes only to be told I can get an "appointment" > in two to three days. It's been my experience that > the person on the other end of the line ( the one > that calls back in a couple of days ) knows less > about VP/ix than I do. I can sympathize with you, I've been there on hold myself. What I'd like to hear from people is, knowing how early releases of software are generally unstable, what would you like to see for support? Let's keep in mind viable solutions - If SCO has 10,000 VP/ix customers they can't hire 5,000 support people. Would you rather: 1) Wait on hold indefinitely to get to speak to a real, live, developer that knows what's going on because he/she wrote the code 2) Just get a busy signal, like the old days 3) Have access to a dial-up bulletin board system to read general fixes and leave messages and maybe get a reply 4) Have access to a dial-up bulletin board system to read the entire outstanding SPR list on the product 5) Not have had a product (like VP/ix) until it was really, really stable - say a year or so later than products are getting released today. 6) Get beta releases early, cheaper, with an upgrade fee to the final release, and knowing that you will be using shaky software with limited (or no) support. It really is a dilemma - people want new software fast but some are not willing to accept the consequences. *Good* beta site testers are invaluable, beta sites who just want a release of a product earlier can be the worst PR possible for a product. I'd love to hear some discussion on this, and this is probably not the best newsgroup for it. And please don't just say "I just want a product that works, period." - we ALL do. -- Jim Morton, APPLiX Inc., Westboro, MA UUCP: ...harvard!m2c!applix!jim jim@applix.m2c.org
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (01/28/89)
In article <1130@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >have gotten 90 days of non-support... >out that Jeff is stuck, I'm stuck, SCO's stuck, AT&T's stuck. The difference >is that SCO and AT&T have more resources to apply to getting Phoenix and >ISC to get-it-right than Jeff and I do. Jeff's frustration (and mine) is > >Is it hardware? I doubt it, Jeff's mouse doesn't work, nor does mine. I'll >bet he's got the same EGA problems I do, I'd be amazed if he had the same EGA. Hi Bill. Not that ISC VP/ix 1.10 doesn't have bugs, but at least the mouse works fine for me. I've used it in PC Paint Plus and in Leisure Suit Larry 2 - Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places. My mouse is a serial mouse, maybe bus mice don't work? Or maybe ISC has a better incarnation of VP/ix? I have seen weird things, though. Like can't emulate instruction, or something like that. That only happened in the gangway to the airplane in LSL2. Consistently. I had to boot real DOS, go down the gangway, save the game, and then I finished the game under VP/ix. Actually, my biggest gripe has been with the DOS applications. They seem to insist upon A-F being the only valid drive letters. Z isn't a choice. -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2 PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2 uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. |submission forms. jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp
tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (01/30/89)
In article <408@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: [ familiar complaints about real VP/ix problems deleted ] > I AGREE! When *IS* it going to get fixed? With the price that SCO charges > for the product (a commercial $$$), shouldn't we expect more results? > > Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!" > USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________ > VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft > UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co. > DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USA Before I present what will probably be an unpopular view, let me say that EVERYONE is right. What hasn't been pointed out yet, however, is that the problem isn't just with VP/ix. MS-DOS and the software written to use it are more than partly to blame. Most commercial packages build in some form of direct device access in order to improve performance. This is necessary--MS-DOS i/o is pretty horrid. But for the people who have to write the software to make it multitask, this presents an almost insurmountable problem: all of these direct i/o requests have to be intercepted and routed through handlers. Other OS software to multitask DOS fairs similarly. Even the ones who have had years to sort it out, like Software Link, still have to constantly patch and add to their code to accomodate some package that breaks the rules in a new way. I think you'll find this to be true: any piece of software that always uses the BIOS for i/o and otherwise acts according to the "well-behaved" guidelines will run flawlessly under VP/ix, Concurrent DOS, DOS-merge, or what-have-you. The software that meets this criteria, however, makes a very short (and often uninteresting) list. The 80386 hardware makes it somewhat easier with its virtual 8086s, but some code still needs to be built in to trap attempted port i/o and decipher direct memory access. I'm afraid, for VP/ix and other programs like it, there will always be exception cases that just don't run. Complexity of the task is one factor, but another, non-technical issue bears considering: what if ISC just sat on the product until they felt is was perfect? Then this forum would be overflowing with unpleasant comments about how long we've all waited for this stuff. The pre-release and the subsequent "released-before-ready" versions of VP/ix were put out because of stiff competition and overwhelming market demand. Look at all the flack Lotus and Ashton-Tate have taken over holding back releases. Being careful costs software companies business, and ISC (SCO/AT&T) must weigh marketing as well as technical considerations. We'd all be hard-pressed to buy anything from a company that failed to turn a profit. Until the "art" of software development is raised to a level where perfection is attainable, we should learn not to expect so much from recently-released products. Anyone in the industry would tell you that VP/ix, from conception to present, is still just an infant. It will grow and improve, but don't be critical of ISC for grouping the improvements together instead of dribbling them out a bit at a time. This is expensive, and only serves to raise the ire of those whose pet bug fixes/enhancements didn't make it into the latest incremental release. Is there anything good to be said for VP/ix? I think so. It's saved us all the expense of a second machine (it certainly runs faster than any system you could build for $500, considering the cost to network it in with your Unix box), and rescues us from the "Unix-reboot-DOS-reboot-Unix..." cycle. In short, it's a convenience. A luxury. Nobody on the planet NEEDS this product, but we all want it. Does this mean I'm not in favor of these discussions? Hardly--it helps people set their expectations. Many consultants considered using VP/ix as a way to run DOS applications on multiple dumb terminals. Frighteningly, some are selling it as just that (pity their poor customers), but the informed ones have either heard the news or seen it for themselves: its capabilities don't stretch that far. For the record, I'm a registered owner of VP/ix, running under SCO Xenix, and soon will be running it under ISC's 386/ix. I agree that it is flawed, but frankly my experience with it has been fair. My work is 90% Unix, and I kick over to DOS for some telecommunications and Unix-->DOS development. I'm running Turbo C 2.0, Carbon Copy (communications) and a host of other applications. I have seen some anomalies and learned to work around them. I much prefer the dynamically-sized "pseudo drive" to a dedicated DOS partition. I look forward to performance and reliability gains, but for my purposes, it will do for now. For all those who complained: I don't take lightly the frustration and dis- pleasure you feel over VP/ix, and hope that ISC is working feverishly on solutions that we will all find satisfactory. Good luck to all. Thanks for lending an eye to my opinions. (ty) -- +--Tom Yager, Apollo Computer R & D----------------------------------------+ | ARPA: tyager%maxx@m2c.m2c.org (preferred) -or- tyager@apollo.com | | I speak only for (and to) myself | +--"I like life; it's something to do."------------------------------------+
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (01/31/89)
In article <5980005@hplsla.HP.COM> jeffh@hplsla.HP.COM (Jeff Harrell) writes: | 3) IT'S BUGGY- I've found a number or "unexplainable" lock=ups, | missing key strokes, sluggish keyboard response, | (what the heck happened?) stuff... It's not bug-free, but I haven't seen anything like the number of problems you imply. I don't lose keystrokes, for instance, even in programs which poll instead of using the keyboard BIOS call. | 4) DOS APPLICATIONS DON'T WORK- Several DOS pplications don't! | Try saving a "FIRST CHOICE" file for example. | Or try using 800X600 drivers.. Graphics stuff using foreign drivers doesn't work, agreed. I would love to use the 640x480 EGA card I have, not spend $k or so for a VGA and monitor. | 6) HUMAN INTERFACE- My wife uses an XT at school. We've got a | 20MHz 386, 4MB ram, 80MB disk, 20MHz 80387 | and a Paradise VGA+ card with a multi-sync | monitor. In VP/ix she complains that our | system is SLOWER than the XT she uses at | school??? Let's just say I disagree with you... screen updates may be somewhat slower than a dedicated DOS machine, but I see no reason to believe that disk and CPU are significantly impacted. | 7) SERIAL MOUSE- It works- off and on. The mouse with the Dell325 seems to work pretty well, and someone else here is using one on a Compaq running Windows. I have heard horror stories, but I haven't seen it myself. | 8) TIME OF DAY- runs slowwwwwwww. Yes. I update the time of day from the hardware clock, and set the hardware clock from NBS. There is a command to diddle the clock rate (sorry, can't remember it) which I haven't tried. I think I looked at it and decided the documentation was bad, even for UNIX. I'm not sure that VP/ix is the cause, since I see time drift with 2.3.1 even without VP/ix running (but it is on the disk). ________________________________________________________________ My big botch is that I can't make CGI work. I had it working with 2.2.1 (upgraded to 2.2.3) and VP/ix beta, but it just flat won't work with the new version. Now instead of using a separate DOS machine for parallel graphics development, I can use a separate Xenix machine. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) (02/01/89)
Quoth root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) in <408@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US>: |In article <5980005@hplsla.HP.COM>, jeffh@hplsla.HP.COM (Jeff Harrell) writes: |> |> I WANT to use VP/ix! I like VP/ix! But, damm, is it gonna get fixed? | |I AGREE! When *IS* it going to get fixed? With the price that SCO charges |for the product (a commercial $$$), shouldn't we expect more results? |Shouldn't we hear something from SCO and Interactive Systems as to what |progress is being made? I have had my 1.1 release of VP/ix since September |and, while a big improvement over the Controlled Release, it still is |extremely choppy and prone to failure. I just got a taste of that myself when I tried to run WP 5.0 on top of VP/ix. The hang resulted in a loss of my machine, when I had to power down, and it wouldn't power back up. I'm waiting for Wyse to set my hardware to rights... | [specific examples deleted...] |but with all the key pounding I have to do to get it to work, my colleagues |are less forgiving and persistent and give up when it locks up. They |then insist I boot the DOS partition so they can get their work done |without the interruptions of VP/ix. They are NOT computer oriented people. |They know enough to run their particular application, and that is *ALL* |they WANT to know. They should not have to put up with this, especially |for the amount paid and the way SCO presented VP/ix. I agree. I bought VP/ix so we could make occasional use of WP and Supercalc on our 386 while evaluating Xenix-native OA packages and developing our Progress-based order-processing system. Now it appears I can not do so with any reliability, and I am not pleased. |Don't get me wrong, I think VP/ix is a wonderful concept and I really like |the program. But I MUST be critical of the fact that SCO is marketting |the product as a commercial piece of software, and it just doesn't deliver. |It comes close (sometimes), but for the applications I need to run on it, |close doesn't work at all, so for me, it is lost money. | |My point is, shouldn't we expect and see more from SCO in terms of getting |VP/ix whipped into shape??? I am afraid that unless they get on the ball, |future versions will be so heavily scrutinized by people that some won't |even want to take the risk of buying is ($$$$) and finding that can't do |the job for them. I mean, why else buy it at that price? Would you spend |$500 for a DOS word processor that had the reliability factor of VP/ix |and use it for processing law documents for law firm or a city court? No. I'd be pissed. What I can't figure out is, why has SCO had so much trouble with this product when the Sun 386i (which uses it built into the SunOS kernel) seems to run it flawlessly (from all reports I've read on it... anyone who has experience to the contrary, I'd like to hear from you). I mean, do you have to slow the OS down by 50% (as SunOS compares to Xenix on similar hardware) to have a reliable implementation of VP/ix? |SCO, please tell us what is going on! They should either change their |posture on VP/ix, OR get the thing updated and fixed in a much more timely |manner and keep us updated at to where they are at. Some of |us who bought the product last Spring are *STILL* waiting for SCO to |come through. Like I said, it is a great product idea, but would YOU |run it in a commercial office environment? Isn't that what SCO has in |mind? It is certainly what I was led to believe, and what I had in mind. If this ain't the case, I won't be using it long. Waddya say, SCO? -- "Big Bob says he's getting tired of you saying he |"Do you think God lets doesn't really exist." - Fat Little Nerdy Kid - | you plea bargain?" Tom Betz - ZCNY - Yonkers, NY - 914-375-1514 |"I'd worry more about ...cmcl2!dasys1!tbetz OR ...uunet!dasys1!tbetz | your mom." - C & H