Fred . wrote:
> > Fred . wrote:
> > > Anyone wishing to test this, can get a bootdisk from bootdisk.com.
> > >
> > > http://bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
> >
> > Did you verify that those bootdisks do in fact reproduce the problem?
> >
> > Doing that would be a good way to help the project.
>
> No, I
No, I did not.
I just mentioned them as they are DOS 6.22 bootdisks, which was mentioned.
So I assumed they would be useful for reproducing the problem.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Fred . wrote:
> > Anyone wishing to test this, can get a bootdisk from bootdisk.com.
>
Fred . wrote:
> Anyone wishing to test this, can get a bootdisk from bootdisk.com.
>
> http://bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
Did you verify that those bootdisks do in fact reproduce the problem?
Doing that would be a good way to help the project.
//Peter
___
Anyone wishing to test this, can get a bootdisk from bootdisk.com.
http://bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 06:44:53PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I bisected down 2 DOS 6.22 compatibility issues:
>
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 06:44:53PM +0100, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I bisected down 2 DOS 6.22 compatibility issues:
>
> 1.) COMMAND.COM can not be loaded high,
> 9c98517c938d20c38f537d516c71b30bb60c3ea0 is the first bad commit
> Looks like and UMB generated which is not recognizeable
Hello,
I bisected down 2 DOS 6.22 compatibility issues:
1.) COMMAND.COM can not be loaded high,
9c98517c938d20c38f537d516c71b30bb60c3ea0 is the first bad commit
Looks like and UMB generated which is not recognizeable ...
Before: 9E80-9F7F: 4k EBDA, 9F80-9FFF: 2k UNUSED, really unused or used
