Dear People,
I don't care how small IMOUSE or CTMOUSE is. Neither one should be
recommended if they both have the flaw of failing to recognize where
mouse *really* is and insisting that mouse can only install on COM1.
FWIW, I was using a modem looooooooooong before I had a mouse. Thus my
modem always was [and will be] COM1. My mouse will be on COM2 or COM3,
depending upon the configuration I'm running.
A mouse driver with a teeny tiny footprint in memory is useless if it
lies about mouse detection and/or can install only on a hardwired comm
port.
It wouldn't be nice to recommend *any* software that is that unflexible.
l.d.
====
On Fri, 26 May 2000 18:01:39 +0200 (MET DST), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ricsi wrote:
>> CTMouse is a great selection ....
>> But IMHO mine is smaler :)))
>> === Begin file ===
>> IMOUSE 3.712 (4K) 0 (0K) 3.712 (4K)
>> === End file ===
> How can we get this? And what features does it actually support?
> Just because you have such a small one I, of course <g>, needed to perform
> better. Cute Mouse uses 2992 bytes now - without RIL support whatever that
> is. And that's the problem, I've got no idea what the code is actually used
> for in most cases since none of the programs I have uses the mouse driver
> in such a way. Perhaps I would be better of starting from scratch?
> If only big corporations would be so crazy as I am with using as little
> memory as possible...
> Don't expect that I'll upload this version this weekend - I should start
> studying for the exams on monday instead of doing things I want :(
> Perhaps in two weeks time I'll have time to upload it...
--
-- "I need not like the company I keep, if that company helps me
attain my own personal goals and does me no harm." anon.
--
-- Arachne V1.61, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
