Michael Devore escreveu:
At 05:45 PM 8/24/2004 -0300, Alain wrote:
Michael Devore escreveu:
I could map RAM to X=TEST which is about as safe as you can
automatically get for UMB's, but that would appear to break MS
compatibility for RAM option. What the heck does the documentation
stating that
At 05:45 PM 8/24/2004 -0300, Alain wrote:
Michael Devore escreveu:
I could map RAM to X=TEST which is about as safe as you can automatically
get for UMB's, but that would appear to break MS compatibility for RAM
option. What the heck does the documentation stating that RAM option
uses "all avai
Michael Devore escreveu:
At 04:30 PM 8/24/2004 -0300, Alain wrote:
Michael Devore escreveu:
But, (is there always one?) does the "RAM" option fall within "a
compatibility problem"? I use it as default for one reason: I
install it on any client machine and I don't expect it to do any
optimizati
Uploaded to ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/downloads is the file
share.zip. It contains a modified SHARE.C and uncompressed SHARE.COM
executable.
The changes to SHARE align it with the behavior expected from a DOS 7 share
utility by removing several conditions which previously returned an
error
At 04:30 PM 8/24/2004 -0300, Alain wrote:
Michael Devore escreveu:
But, (is there always one?) does the "RAM" option fall within "a
compatibility problem"? I use it as default for one reason: I install it
on any client machine and I don't expect it to do any optimization, but
to provide _some_
Michael Devore escreveu:
But, (is there always one?) does the "RAM" option fall within "a
compatibility problem"? I use it as default for one reason: I install
it on any client machine and I don't expect it to do any optimization,
but to provide _some_ UMB which ususaly makes a better system as
Welcome back, Jim!
The link you are trying to link to is actually on Microsoft's web site,
not SourceForge.
But the link was placed on the SourceForge site, inside the top banner.
So no, this is not the "end" of Open Source.
My "end of open source" comment was slightly ironic. I was just
scandali
At 10:31 PM 8/24/2004 +0800, Johnson Lam wrote:
Sorry for my stupidity, I really have no idea what's happen in SB
Emulation.
Last test is a failure. It always report cannot load something into
memory (I'll clean up the mess and post again).
SoundBlaster requires that you use an EMM= setting in EMM3
At 02:10 PM 8/24/2004 -0300, Alain wrote:
But, (is there always one?) does the "RAM" option fall within "a
compatibility problem"? I use it as default for one reason: I install it
on any client machine and I don't expect it to do any optimization, but to
provide _some_ UMB which ususaly makes a
Hi Michael,
I believe that you made you position cristal clear. Not only I respect
that but I agree with it. And many thanks for what you have done so far :))
But, (is there always one?) does the "RAM" option fall within "a
compatibility problem"? I use it as default for one reason: I install it
Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
Is this the end of Open Source? SourceForge currently advertises
Microsoft Server 2003 saying that it outperforms every RedHat
configuration tested. Here's the banner link URL (don't click on it!):
http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v3|3171|3|0|*|a%3B10271864%3B0-0%3B0%
Is this the end of Open Source? SourceForge currently advertises Microsoft
Server 2003 saying that it outperforms every RedHat configuration tested.
Here's the banner link URL (don't click on it!):
http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v3|3171|3|0|*|a%3B10271864%3B0-0%3B0%3B9754113%3B3454-728|90%3
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 03:02:52 -0500, you wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for my stupidity, I really have no idea what's happen in SB
Emulation.
Last test is a failure. It always report cannot load something into
memory (I'll clean up the mess and post again).
Because I can access that SBLIVE PC once a week. I'
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:32:58 +0300, you wrote:
Hi Lucho,
>> I've Chinese system which run into problem but I never reported, because
>> it's stupid to spend time for that piece of customized software which
>> few of us will use.
>
>Few of *us* here maybe, but how many millions of Chinese users
I've Chinese system which run into problem but I never reported, because
it's stupid to spend time for that piece of customized software which
few of us will use.
Few of *us* here maybe, but how many millions of Chinese users use it? ;-)
---
SF.
At 03:34 PM 8/24/2004 +0800, Johnson Lam wrote:
>Verification needs to be either by my testing here or via a reasonably
>detailed explanation by a reliable source as to why the feature is desired
>or necessary. Alternatively, if you have incontrovertible proof that a
>new EMM386 option is vital t
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:04:18 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Michael,
>Verification needs to be either by my testing here or via a reasonably
>detailed explanation by a reliable source as to why the feature is desired
>or necessary. Alternatively, if you have incontrovertible proof that a
>new EMM386 o
17 matches
Mail list logo
