Michael Devore wrote:
I would ask why you'd want to bother using FreeCOM under Win98, since
it's a rather strange mix prone to a number of potential pitfalls, but
it's not really any of my business so I won't.
I wanted to use FreeCOM on Win98 mainly for two reasons:
- filename completion
- F
Brolin schreef:
I think maybe you misunderstood what I said. I can't test "with and
without HIMEM and EMM386" because the problems with WD only occur when
using FreeCOM (not FreeDOS, i.e. the kernel) on Win98. There are no
problems when using any of the following combinations:
- Microsoft COMM
At 03:29 PM 7/9/2005 -0800, Brolin wrote:
Michael Devore wrote:
WD is plain old goofy. It has had a "slightly unstable" reputation under
DOS for over ten years. You could be seeing nothing more than the OS
memory image having different byte values at a particular location(s), or
slightly v
Michael Devore wrote:
WD is plain old goofy. It has had a "slightly unstable" reputation
under DOS for over ten years. You could be seeing nothing more than the
OS memory image having different byte values at a particular
location(s), or slightly varied free memory values, or an internal
ope
At 04:48 PM 7/5/2005 -0800, Brolin wrote:
The DOS version of the OpenWatcom debugger (BINW\WD.EXE) behaves strangely
when using FreeCOM on Win98. There are no problems with WD when using
Win98's COMMAND.COM on Win98, nor are there problems when using FreeCOM on
FreeDOS rather than Win98.
The
The DOS version of the OpenWatcom debugger (BINW\WD.EXE) behaves
strangely when using FreeCOM on Win98. There are no problems with WD
when using Win98's COMMAND.COM on Win98, nor are there problems when
using FreeCOM on FreeDOS rather than Win98.
The problem I'm experiencing is that WD will st
