On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marcos Favero Florence de Barros
> Today, however, for the first time, the same problem happened
> with my own computer -- a machine I have been using intensively
> for over a year, and which so far has been completely reliable.
Okay, thanks at least for reporting it to the mailing list.
> An old text editor was running which requires reducing processor
> speed because of the Borland runtime 200 bug. I use Eric's FDAPM
> to reduce the speed. The problem was exactly the same as
> described above, and it also disappeared when the NumLock
> feature is off. It also disappeared when the processor was
> returned to its full speed (1 GHz).
You mean (registered shareware) Vision Edit? (I searched my old emails
to try to remember about this.)
The R200 bug had many potential fixes. Honestly, you might have better
luck asking on news://comp.lang.pascal.borland ! Here's a Google
Groups link to their mini-FAQ (with relevant links). EDIT: Oops, I
anymore, so here's another link to another (very slightly older 2012)
I know we've discussed this before, and I know for a fact that no
solution works 100%.
I can't remember, did we mention this TSR program before? Have you
tried it here (in lieu of FDAPM SPEEDn)? If you have lots of bugged TP
programs, it's maybe easier to just run a simple TSR than patch every
But I know I mentioned that it didn't work on my new-ish machine for
Chasm: The Rift (BP7 DPMI). So I'm "maybe" responsible for telling you
to use FDAPM SPEEDn.
Obviously, now I think maybe it's not a good combination to use
HDPMI16, FDAPM, DBAKPD (or whatever) together in this particular
instance. Maybe a TP binary patch for your editor would be better, but
I don't know which ones would work best for you (since I don't have a
legal copy of Vision Edit).
Here's another link to various TP patches:
> In today's issue, there is no network involved. This is a
> standalone machine I use at home as my main computer, and it has
> been very reliable so far. I also run Puppy Linux and Seamonkey
> or Nightly in it to browse the web. So apparently it is not a
> hardware problem.
What kind of main computer is this? Presumably fairly modern (and not
old Pentium like you use at work)? That makes me also think it could
be a BIOS bug. Compatibility is getting harder and harder.
> Has anyone experienced anything like that? Any idea what it
> might be?
It could be a BIOS bug, or it could be a FreeDOS bug, or it could just
be a bad combination of too many TSRs that weren't well-tested.
P.S. The worst advice is "just don't use that program"! But (as you
most definitely are already aware) ... TDE has Ctrl-b and VILE has
"Ctrl-A f }", etc. (not to mention classic vi [e.g. Elvis]'s friend
"fmt", often invoked via '=' or "!}fmt"). A quick search for GNU Emacs
shows "M-q". Well, I'm sure you know what tool is best for your uses!
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
• 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
• Requirements for releasing software faster
• Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
Freedos-user mailing list