I might have to agree with you Ken, This was just a thought I had while writing the email. Drivewire on the client side does require a lot of background processing, thinking about it.
Bill Nobel b_nobel@ <mailto:b_no...@yuenscanada.com>hotmail.com > On May 11, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Ken Pettit <petti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/11/16 7:57 PM, Bill Nobel wrote: >> >> And for Ken’s response, yes a second protocol. It would mean replacing >> TS-DOS with the Drivewire client in the same format as TS-DOS as to comply >> with the Model T structure. Drivewire uses 256 drives of various sizes in a >> image format, with utilities to move things around on the server side. > > Ahh, this is sounding familiar. I think in the early history of NADSBox, > there was once a request if it could support the DriveWire protocol and I had > looked into it. But it was a sizeable effort to implement in PIC Assembly, > so it never made it it. > > Ken >
