Hi!
24-Авг-2006 14:56 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> What about case, when drivers used in common config.sys, which used in
>>any environment? Then this message in help screen useless in this case.
MD> Assuming there isn't a sub-80386 inst
At 11:27 PM 8/24/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> >>Both executables now run and produce a help screen when run as EXE;
> >>they used to crash right away, so this is already an improvement.
>MD> That's good enough for me. I'll stick a "Requires 80386" message in the
>MD> help screen feedback
Hi!
24--2006 14:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>Both executables now run and produce a help screen when run as EXE;
>>they used to crash right away, so this is already an improvement.
MD> That's good enough for me. I'll stick a "Requires 8038
At 08:31 PM 8/24/2006 +0200, Joris wrote:
> > Welp, anyone who has an 8088 or 8086, or 80186 or 80188, or 80286, can try
> > test EXE's at ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/download/emm386 called
> > HIMKIK86.EXE and EMMKIK86.EXE for --8086 compressed HIMEM and EMM386,
> > respectively, and report their
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:33:12PM -0500, Michael Devore wrote:
> Welp, anyone who has an 8088 or 8086, or 80186 or 80188, or 80286, can try
> test EXE's at ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/download/emm386 called
> HIMKIK86.EXE and EMMKIK86.EXE for --8086 compressed HIMEM and EMM386,
> respectively,
Hi!
23--2006 23:02 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joris van Rantwijk) wrote to Eric Auer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
JvR> I just tested MEM.EXE 1.9a3 and it has the same issue as MEM 1.9a2.
Of course, becuase this algorith was not changed from Bart's one, which
was wrong.
JvR> In fact I do not have a real XT
Hi!
23--2006 19:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>first task pushes a lot of 32bit registers. ...and this was long ago
>>reported by Eric.
MD> No, Eric reported, multiple times, about SY3PACK which is no longer
MD> used.
I do search o
Hehe, I had a card for our 8088 that accelerated it to faster-than-286
speed according to the manual. I think it helped to accept the 286
instruction set as well. You could turn it on and off via a switch.
On 8/23/06, Michael Devore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:25 PM 8/23/2006 -0500, I wro
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Michael Devore wrote:
> At 06:22 PM 8/23/2006 -0400, Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Michael Devore wrote:
>>
>>> Not good enough? Probably not. I'll compress EMM386 with the option next
>>> time, but unless a person with an 8086 is available for pre-testing, i
At 03:23 AM 8/24/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>Hi! 24-á×Ç-2006 01:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
>freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: >> Welp, anyone who has an 8088 or
>8086, or 80186 or 80188, EMM386, >> respectively, and report their
>results. It should kick out a message f
Hi!
24-Авг-2006 01:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Welp, anyone who has an 8088 or 8086, or 80186 or 80188, or 80286, can try
>> test EXE's at ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/download/emm386 called
>> HIMKIK86.EXE and EMMKIK86.EXE for --8086 compressed
>
> Welp, anyone who has an 8088 or 8086, or 80186 or 80188, or 80286, can try
> test EXE's at ftp://ftp.devoresoftware.com/download/emm386 called
> HIMKIK86.EXE and EMMKIK86.EXE for --8086 compressed HIMEM and EMM386,
> respectively, and report their results. It should kick out a message for
At 05:25 PM 8/23/2006 -0500, I wrote:
> >MD> not make a difference. Does anybody here have an 8086 and can act as a
> >MD> test subject in a reasonable turn-around time frame?
> >
> > You yourself?
>
>Nope, I haven't had an 8086 in over a decade. Maybe two.
Come to think of it, it wasn't a
At 06:22 PM 8/23/2006 -0400, Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Michael Devore wrote:
>
> > Not good enough? Probably not. I'll compress EMM386 with the option next
> > time, but unless a person with an 8086 is available for pre-testing, it may
> > not make a difference. Does anybody he
At 02:21 AM 8/24/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>MD> but unless a person with an 8086 is available for pre-testing, it may
>
> Isn't your emulators allow to emulate 8086?
Isn't anything in VPC or Qemu, unless it's a hidden advanced option like
UPX does. Somebody could develop a singl
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Michael Devore wrote:
> Not good enough? Probably not. I'll compress EMM386 with the option next
> time, but unless a person with an 8086 is available for pre-testing, it may
> not make a difference. Does anybody here have an 8086 and can act as a
> test subject in a reason
Hi!
23--2006 16:54 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>UPX. Why you don't use "--8086" option when packing?
MD> option? Because I don't have an 8086 to test and until just now, nobody
MD> else on the list had one available, so it didn't matter?
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Michael Devore wrote:
> At 11:02 PM 8/23/2006 +0200, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:
>
>>> And how about emm386 and himem?
>>
>> HIMEM.EXE (HIMEM64 3.12) crashes on "shl cx,4" even when invoked
>> as "himem /?".
>> Same problem with HIMEM64 3.23.
>> Same problem with EMM386.EXE 2.08
At 01:48 AM 8/24/2006 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>Hi! 23-á×Ç-2006 16:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore)
>wrote to freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net: >>HIMEM.EXE (HIMEM64 3.12)
>crashes on "shl cx,4" even when invoked >>as "himem /?". MD> That's from
>UPX. Why you don't use "--8086
Hi!
23-Авг-2006 16:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>HIMEM.EXE (HIMEM64 3.12) crashes on "shl cx,4" even when invoked
>>as "himem /?".
MD> That's from UPX.
Why you don't use "--8086" option when packing?
--
At 11:02 PM 8/23/2006 +0200, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:
> > And how about emm386 and himem?
>
>HIMEM.EXE (HIMEM64 3.12) crashes on "shl cx,4" even when invoked
>as "himem /?".
>Same problem with HIMEM64 3.23.
>Same problem with EMM386.EXE 2.08.
>Same problem with EMM386.EXE 2.23.
That's from UPX.
Hello Eric,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:48:38PM +0200, Eric Auer wrote:
> Hoi, mem 1.9a2 is not current - Blair should have 1.9a3 somewhere.
MEM.EXE 1.9a2 is part of the Beta9sr2 ISO.
Strangely, the 1.0-Testing ISO does not contain MEM 1.9a3
but MEM 1.7 (which also crashes). Oh wait, some confusi
22 matches
Mail list logo
