> Eric/Tom:

> I used to use INTERxxx a lot many years ago using the special
> parallel cables designed for that purpose (I think I still have a
> couple of those cables in my "spare cable box").  Parallel is MUCH
> faster than serial (null modem) cables.
I also used it *A LOT*. in times when there were no network cards a
commodity. (the times they are a changing ...)

> I believe Eric is correct when he says INTERxxx is sector-based
> rather than file-based as Tom states.  I do know that the client
> (INTERLNK) must be capable of "understanding" the file system of the
> server (INTERSVR).  For example, if the client is MS-DOS 6.2 (which
> doesn't understand FAT32) and the server is MS-DOS 7.x (which does
> understand FAT32) and you're trying to access a FAT32 disk on the
> server, it doesn't work.  I know this for sure because I've tried
> it.  If INTERxxx was file-based, it wouldn't matter which version of
> FAT was on either computer (and could even work on non-FAT drives
> the server had mounted, like CD's and network drives).

you are right, my memory was plain wrong on this.

and - while debugging the crashing problem - I also saw that it
installs itself as handler for INT 25/26 'DOS DISK READ/WRITE'


Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to