In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in
the same system, both are running 7-stable from within
I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in
the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few
months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement
of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software
settings set is pretty
Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in
the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few
months, so it's pretty
Steve Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have
to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution...
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks [EMAIL
Steve Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have
to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution...
Yes, but isn't that the same for win2k regardless of
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:08:51 -0700
Steve Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have
to use (at least partial) emulation instead of
