Bret, > 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' Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
