Hi Liam,
>> > Nothing you've said is remotely persuasive, IMHO.
>>
>> I'm not here to convince you. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
>
> I am not attacking you here! :-(
>
> I'm just trying to warn you that you're doing something dangerous
> that's risky to your computer and your data, the s
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 21:33, Robert Riebisch wrote:
> > Nothing you've said is remotely persuasive, IMHO.
>
> I'm not here to convince you. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
I am not attacking you here! :-(
I'm just trying to warn you that you're doing something dangerous
that's risky to you
Yes, Ralf:
I have a really basic question regarding the date format.
After decades, I decided I would like the date format to be -mm-dd
instead of mm-dd-yy
As this thread has drifted off into a completely different topic, here's
a bit humor to get back on the issue at hand (though I am no
Hi Liam,
[...]
> Nothing you've said is remotely persuasive, IMHO.
I'm not here to convince you. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
Cheers,
Robert
--
+++ BTTR Software +++
Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/
DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/
__
On 12/30/2021 2:22 AM, JR wrote:
Hi there
I have a really basic question regarding the date format.
After decades, I decided I would like the date format to be -mm-dd
instead of mm-dd-yy
As this thread has drifted off into a completely different topic, here's
a bit humor to get back on the
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 16:44, Robert Riebisch wrote:
>
> > I have to ask: why run this old version? It's a bit dangerous to let
>
> Because I *can*. :-D
Doing unsafe things for no good reason is... not smart.
> TB2 as a target for remote code execution these days? I doubt so.
Not TB2. XP. Yes, v
This has drifted quite apart from the original subject,
I will post.
Robert Riebisch said:
| why I should talk to 4 different mail servers. I have one
| mailbox with multiple addresses and that's fine.
One reason is that if a mail server does not work well, as
this did for most of past ye
Hi Liam,
>> This message is written on virtual Windows XP using Thunderbird 2.x from
>> 2010. ;-)
>
> I have to ask: why run this old version? It's a bit dangerous to let
Because I *can*. :-D
> such an old app connect to the internet, especially on a very old,
TB2 as a target for remote code e
Hi Ralf:
Well, it really would bode you well if you were a bit less arrogant at
times.
{These are called ‘You statements’ and are the typical way we
communicate. We tell the person what he did or didn’t do, whether it was
right or wrong or what he should or shouldn’t be doing. Such statement
On 12/31/2021 2:37 PM, tom ehlert wrote:
At that point, the system wants to create a page file that is larger (by
default) than the 2GB fixed file size limit of FAT16/32.
FAT has a limit of 4GB.
it's DOS that limits this unless you indicate at DosOpen that you understand
the difference between
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 20:21, Robert Riebisch wrote:
>
> This message is written on virtual Windows XP using Thunderbird 2.x from
> 2010. ;-)
I have to ask: why run this old version? It's a bit dangerous to let
such an old app connect to the internet, especially on a very old,
insecure OS. Thunde
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 17:37:29 +0100
Liam Proven wrote:
> > This typical Microsoftish genius idea, makes you jump through all
> > kinds of hoops that include a third party online repartitioning
> > tool to install it on an NTFS partition bigger than 2Gb.
>
> That's unfair. I think it's connected wi
Hi Travis,
> Reminds me of my last XP machine, supposedly, XP could handle up to 4GB
> of ram, but when I installed 4GB in my machine, XP only saw 3.5GB. No
> idea why, I never did find out what the technical reason was, but it was
> a commonly known problem, since almost everywhere I tried to
Ahh, thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Wasn't aware such things were
still the case these days, but these two messages answer the question
sufficiently, thanks for that.
On 1/1/2022 8:23 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 02:12, Travis Siegel wrote:
supposedly, XP could handle u
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 02:12, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> supposedly, XP could handle up to 4GB
> of ram, but when I installed 4GB in my machine, XP only saw 3.5GB.
What Jon Brase said, broadly.
Remember the original PC's 640 kB limit? The 8088 and 8086 could
address 1 MB of RAM, but DOS on the PC c
The issue is memory-mapped hardware. Any hardware that exposes configuration
resisters or data buffers on the main address bus ends up taking a block of
physical address space that could be used by RAM. If your CPU, motherboard,
and/or OS can't deal with physical addresses wider than 32 bits, th
Reminds me of my last XP machine, supposedly, XP could handle up to 4GB
of ram, but when I installed 4GB in my machine, XP only saw 3.5GB. No
idea why, I never did find out what the technical reason was, but it was
a commonly known problem, since almost everywhere I tried to get the ram
from f
> At that point, the system wants to create a page file that is larger (by
> default) than the 2GB fixed file size limit of FAT16/32.
FAT has a limit of 4GB.
it's DOS that limits this unless you indicate at DosOpen that you understand
the difference between signed and unsigned (2GB and 4GB) off
On 12/31/2021 8:14 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 21:04, Deposite Pirate wrote:
Windows XP can indeed officially be installed and boot from FAT32.
https://kb.iu.edu/d/ajqm
AFAICS that page is inconclusive and merely says that XP supports
FAT16, 32 and NTFS, which was never in d
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 17:14:10 +0100
Liam Proven wrote:
> FWIW, I always used to have a DOS boot partition (C:) and put Windows
> on D: back in the XP days. It was useful to have the ability to
> dual-boot DOS for BIOS reflashing and occasionally for emergency data
> recovery. I made the partition b
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 at 01:46, Deposite Pirate wrote:
>
> Windows NT was designed to work with FAT. Windows NT 4
... and the 3 earlier versions...
> always
> first formats the install partition as a FAT16 filesystem and then if
> you selected NTFS at install, it converts the FAT16 file system onl
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 at 00:02, Jon Brase wrote:
>
> NTVDM exists and runs a stripped down version of MS-DOS 5. I think it even
> does have non-stripped versions of the relevant files available if the user
> decides to sys a floppy. But I've never heard of it being possible to run
> anything but
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 21:04, Deposite Pirate wrote:
>
> Windows XP can indeed officially be installed and boot from FAT32.
>
> https://kb.iu.edu/d/ajqm
AFAICS that page is inconclusive and merely says that XP supports
FAT16, 32 and NTFS, which was never in doubt. But I checked and you're
right.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 18:40:07 -0500
dmccunney wrote:
> You might be*able* to. I encountered a guy years back adamant that
> Win2K should be run from FAT32. He thought it was faster. (I thought
> he was a fool.)
>
> Why you might *want* to is another matter. "A file system DOS can
> read and write
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:04 PM Deposite Pirate wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 19:21:36 +0100
> Liam Proven wrote:
> > AFAIK XP *must* be installed in an NTFS partition. It cannot be
> > installed on FAT. DOS can't boot from NTFS and can't read NTFS without
> > additional drivers. So I still don't
Dec 30, 2021 12:22:48 Liam Proven :
>
> I have been using NT since the first version, 3.1, in 1993. There is
> no built-in facility or tool to run DOS under it and never has been.
> That is why I asked. This is highly relevant and important to the
> question. There are no "dots" to follow.
NTVDM
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 19:21:36 +0100
Liam Proven wrote:
> AFAIK XP *must* be installed in an NTFS partition. It cannot be
> installed on FAT. DOS can't boot from NTFS and can't read NTFS without
> additional drivers. So I still don't know what you're doing here.
Windows XP can indeed officially be
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 13:19, JR wrote:
> Too long ago, I can't remember. Probably just followed the dots at the
> time. Runs in a Windows VDM as far as I know.
I have been using NT since the first version, 3.1, in 1993. There is
no built-in facility or tool to run DOS under it and never has bee
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 11:39, JR wrote:
First thing...
> I am running FreeDos under Windows XP
... Er... How?
2nd thing:
> included the line
> "country=061,437,c:\windows\system32\country.sys" in the
> c:\windows\system32\config.nt file
Should this not be pointing to FreeDOS' directory and Fr
Hi there
I have a really basic question regarding the date format.
After decades, I decided I would like the date format to be -mm-dd
instead of mm-dd-yy
The "International English" country code of 061 will do the job.
See. http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Country_codes
I am running Fr
30 matches
Mail list logo
