Hi Kim,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:49:52 +0100, you [Kim Gräsman] wrote:
}Did you use the dqsdx64-4100-beta.zip from:
}http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=42081package_id=34145
Not exactly, the URL got mine from was as above with
'release_id=618124' added to it. They both appear
Hi Bill,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 15:12, bill.hew...@sentex.net wrote:
Hi Kim,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:49:52 +0100, you [Kim Gräsman] wrote:
}Did you use the dqsdx64-4100-beta.zip from:
}http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=42081package_id=34145
Not exactly, the URL got
Bill,
Glad to hear you got it working! We definitely need to document the
steps for installing the x64 build...
- Kim
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 16:37, bill.hew...@sentex.net wrote:
Hi Kim,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:15:38 +0100, you [Kim Gräsman] wrote:
}SourceForge didn't have any generic
Hi Charlie,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:37:53 -0800, you [Charlie Russel] wrote:
}That should work. At least it did here. (and no, I'm now on Win7 and that
breaks it again. I've about given up. Unless we create a Gadget for Vista/Win7,
I think we're doomed to be playing hopeless catchup.
Thanks
Actually, in many ways, Win7 is better/easier than Vista. I'm really
looking forward to it being released. But for applications like ours,
it's really a challenge.
I've had to mostly stop using DQSD. Not what I wanted, I miss it every
day. But it crashes explorer in Win7, and I can't run it off
Cool, I didn't know that. I was worried that we might be facing
*another* port to AMD-64 :)
No, no worries there. There are a very few things that one or the other
does slightly differently, and probably only the Intel compiler knows
what they are. AMD64 completely caught Intel by surprise, they
