In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
>
>On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in
>> the same system, both are running 7-stable fro
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:08:51 -0700
"Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
> >
> > If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have
> > to use (at least partial)
> "Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
>
> If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have
> to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution...
Yes, but isn't that the same for win2k regardles
"Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have
to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution...
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL
Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in
> the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few
> months, so it's pretty
I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in
the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few
months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement
of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software &
settings set is pretty identi