Paul McNett wrote:
> Pete Theisen wrote:
>> Paul McNett wrote:
>>> Pete Theisen wrote:
Paul McNett wrote:
> That's less time than Obama will be president!
Now what was that you were saying about [OT]?
>>> Seems to me that *you* took it [OT].
>> Hi Paul!
>>
>> The O-man remark was in y
Pete Theisen wrote:
> Paul McNett wrote:
>> Pete Theisen wrote:
>>> Paul McNett wrote:
That's less time than Obama will be president!
>>> Now what was that you were saying about [OT]?
>> Seems to me that *you* took it [OT].
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> The O-man remark was in your post, I merely noticed
Paul McNett wrote:
> Pete Theisen wrote:
>> Paul McNett wrote:
>>> That's less time than Obama will be president!
>> Now what was that you were saying about [OT]?
>
> Seems to me that *you* took it [OT].
Hi Paul!
The O-man remark was in your post, I merely noticed it. Oh, we aren't
supposed to
- Sarah Palin, Sept 4, 2008
Right Wing Mike
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FPW 2.6 apps compatible with Vista?
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Date: Thursday,
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since 64-bit has been around for years and has yet to make any serious
> impact on server or desktop, and since even 32-bit is fine for most
> applications unless you need to address absolute scads of memory, I
> wouldn't fr
Pete Theisen wrote:
> Paul McNett wrote:
>> That's less time than Obama will be president!
> Now what was that you were saying about [OT]?
Seems to me that *you* took it [OT].
Paul
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http:
Paul McNett wrote:
> That's less time than Obama will be president!
>
> Paul
Hi Paul!
Now what was that you were saying about [OT]?
--
Regards,
Pete
http://pete-theisen.com/
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://le
Paul Hill wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:53:48 -0700, "Paul McNett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> So... what to do to avoid this situation in the future? For FPW apps,
>>> you can at least compile them in VFP to make them 3
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:53:48 -0700, "Paul McNett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> So... what to do to avoid this situation in the future? For FPW apps,
>> you can at least compile them in VFP to make them 32-bit. But what do we
Considering that win95 was supposed to be a 32 bit os and was not Im not
sure what to believe from M$
Al
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Newton
Sent: 18 September 2008 21:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FPW 2.6 apps compatible
Alan Bourke wrote:
> Any 64-bit flavour of Windows will not run *any* 16-bit app. The 16 bit
> virtual machine is gone.
>
That implies, to me, that there will or may be SOME 64-bit flavours of
Windows that might run SOME 16-bit apps
How about - No 64-bit flavour .. WILL (ever) run AN
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:53:48 -0700, "Paul McNett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> So... what to do to avoid this situation in the future? For FPW apps,
> you can at least compile them in VFP to make them 32-bit. But what do we
> do with our 32-bit VFP apps when 128-bit Windows 2012 won't run 'em
Any 64-bit flavour of Windows will not run *any* 16-bit app. The 16 bit
virtual machine is gone.
--
Alan Bourke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free ve
Yep, I know. Bad Mike
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FPW 2.6 apps compatible with Vista?
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 12:55 PM
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:
Ted Roche wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Paul McNett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't think it will run in 64bit Vista though. Can anyone confirm this?
>> I think it would.
>
> I would think it _could_, but that MS might not have a lot of interest
> in maintaining a 16-bit system
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Paul McNett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it will run in 64bit Vista though. Can anyone confirm this?
>
> I think it would.
I would think it _could_, but that MS might not have a lot of interest
in maintaining a 16-bit system that's vulnerable to
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Paul McNett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hill wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:53:54 -0400, "Malcolm Greene"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Anyone have any experience running FPW 2.
Paul Hill wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:53:54 -0400, "Malcolm Greene"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> Anyone have any experience running FPW 2.6 apps under Vista? If
>>> so, how well does this work and what are the proble
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Alan Bourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:53:54 -0400, "Malcolm Greene"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Anyone have any experience running FPW 2.6 apps under Vista? If
>> so, how well does this work and what are the problems.
>
> Works about t
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:42:34 -0700 (PDT), "Michael Madigan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> They work. The only problem I had was that I was using the root
> directory for the temp files like
>
> editwork=c:\
> sortwork=c:\
> progwork=c:\
> tmpfiles=c:\
>
Mike, I would put it to you that putting
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:53:54 -0400, "Malcolm Greene"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyone have any experience running FPW 2.6 apps under Vista? If
> so, how well does this work and what are the problems.
Works about the same as XP - they're in a virtual 16-bit machine. No
difference from XP in my e
ave been anyway.
Other than that, It's worked fine. You may also want to click "run in separate
memory space" in the desktop shortcut.
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Malcolm Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Malcolm Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: FPW 2.6 ap
Anyone have any experience running FPW 2.6 apps under Vista? If
so, how well does this work and what are the problems.
Thank you,
Malcolm
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
__
23 matches
Mail list logo
