On Fri, 26 May 2000 19:50:27 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> 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.
CTMOUSE does not insist on installing only on COM1. It will install on
COM1 by default; however, if you run the mouse driver with a parameter
such as "/2","/3",or "/4" then it will install on COM2, COM3, or COM4
respectively. No problem.
> 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.
I agree that the mouse driver documentation should not make any false
claim that the program is capable of detecting automatically the comport
on which the mouse is installed. No such claims are made for my version,
version 14. I install the mouse driver by including a parameter to
indicate the comport.
> It wouldn't be nice to recommend *any* software that is that unflexible.
CTMOUSE is not at all unflexible
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
