Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:25:19 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), mark@quickweb.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC? Message-ID: <199702210625.XAA00389@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199702201821.LAA15669@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199702201640.JAA28151@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199702201821.LAA15669@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What Terry said with regard to 16 bit drivers in particular came *after* > Nate said this was wrong: > > ] Nate says: > ] > > ] > You're wrong Terry. The win31 -> win95 upgrade copies your autoexec and > ] > config files to .dos, and rems some of the old drivers (like msdex) out, > ] > but overall it will use the 16bit dos drivers happily. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nate didn't say this. > POINT 1: The 16 bit disk interrupts can not be hooked > successfully without disabling the Windows95 PM > disk drivers. This contravenes the claim indicated > in Nate's last sentence above. Counter-point. The 16-bit Windows driver works on my Win95 box to drive the silly parallel-port SCSI adaptor. How? > POINT 2: LANtastic for Windows 3.x is well known to fail on > Windows95 unless the PM disk drivers are disabled. > This is a repeatable, concrete test which disproves > the validity of Nate's claim. No, this is a *single* event which shows that the Artisoft's product does something funky with the OS that conflicts with the PM drivers. You can't justify a all-encompassing statement with a single example. Any example which refutes your statement makes your statement false. (And there have been *many* people who have proof that youre statement is false.) Now, get your attributions correct. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702210625.XAA00389>