[arachne] Re: Alternate browser usages
- From: "Greg Mayman" <gmone@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arachne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:21:41 +1030
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:54:07 -0600, Glenn Gilbreath Jr. wrote:
> Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
> Greg,
> I think you got confused between FAT16 and the memory limit of Zipslack unz
> ipping. It isn't FAT, it is because plain DOS usually only makes the 1st 6
> 40 kb of memory usable. As you discoverd, using a different unzipper, one
> that can use the extwnded memory you have, you unzipped the file. You need
> ed to access all the RAM on the machine, so a utility such as CWSDPMI, will
> allow programs that use more than the 640 kb conventional to map and use w
> hat they need, whether it is FAT16 or FAT32...the latter refer to file syst
> ems on hard disk drives, not RAM. Good luck!
I disagree.
The file unzipped with PKUNZIP v2.50 plus CWSDPMI onto a FAT16
hard disk would not work.
The same result when using Arachne's UNZIP.EXE, and UNZIP32.EXE.
The same zip file, using UNZIP32, on the same computer, on the
same hard disk, but with the disk now fdisked and formatted to
FAT32, was unzipped to a working installation, but needed w98's
DOS on a boot floppy to access the hard disk during the unzipping
and running. No memory expansion/extension software was/is
installed on that boot floppy.
The only -- repeat, ONLY -- differences are the format of the
hard disk and the DOS being used.
Greg
Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --
Other related posts:
