On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:48:36 -0600, Mike wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:52:29 -0600, Mike wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>Ron Johnson wrote: > >> > >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>>Hash: SHA1 > >>> > >>>On 02/16/07 16:22, Mike McCarty wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>especially since it can't be done. The smallest disc these > >>>>days is around 100 Gig. I wonder why it won't run on a 386? > > > > > > ..you wanna google "2GB limit" "8.4GB limit", "137GB limit", those > > old 386 bioses covered those wee old disks waaay back then. > > You didn't respond to what I wrote. ..I beg to differ, I did take your claims of wizardry at face value. > I didn't allude to a BIOS limit. I alluded to what is available today. > One cannot get a small disc anymore. ..correct, so my suggestions was meant to point you towards ideas on challenging hacks to make your 386 accept today's new big disks. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
