From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 20 17:47:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA25151 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25145 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:47:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA00747; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:42:43 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199702210142.SAA00747@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC? To: jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:42:43 -0700 (MST) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, terry@lambert.org, jamie@inna.net, toneil@visigenic.com, jfieber@indiana.edu, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199702201716.JAA01037@lightside.com> from "Jake Hamby" at Feb 20, 97 09:16:17 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Terry, I'll have to jump in and agree with Nate and the others that > you are wrong about Win95 renaming config.sys and autoexec.bat. Maybe > you misunderstood the question, but you are wrong. > > Windows 95, from what I've experienced, may comment out one or two > drivers that it knows about (basically MS ones like MSCDEX), but > leaves the rest of config.sys and autoexec.bat basically intact. > It may make a separate autoexec.dos with uncommented versions of > MSCDEX and so forth, but the originally files are NOT renamed. > Admit you are wrong! I reinstalled Windows95 on a scratch system before making my previous posting to Nate. It exhibited the behaviour I described, namely renaming instead of copying those files. The scratch system was a WFWG 3.11 with a vendor-supplied CDROM driver and several other components (like McAfee antivirus) that were loaded into the autoexec.bat and config.sys. I will make you the same offer I made Nate (I haven't seen a message from any of "and the others"). If you can tell me how to duplicate your results locally, on a scratch system, I will duplicate them, and if I get the same results, I will repost my other posting's paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, with minor editing of paragraph 2 to include the admission. Most likely, you or Nate will need to provide me with a file to point to in config.sys or autoexec.bat, one you know for a fact will not be removed by the Win95 install. > As for whether or not it *uses* these DOS drivers in Win32 mode, I > will agree that it doesn't, if it also has a native Win32 driver > for the device in question. Yes. And if it doesn't have one, it still won't call the "DOS not busy interrupt" or push all INT 21 calls all the way down to the 16 bit driver, unless you change configuration options away from the defaults, so even if you have a 16 bit driver, it won't do you any good unless you do something non-standard, or it happens to only hook interrupts that don't get proxies to a protect mode dispatcher. > But the drivers ARE still loaded, they DO take up conventional (or > high) memory, and they WILL be used if the system is exited to DOS > mode. All agreed (except it's "Restart the computer in MS-DOS mode"). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.