HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dieter@dischw.toppoint.de (Dieter Fritzsche)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: WARNING !!!!! MS WINDOWS 3.1 SmartDrive Problem
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 10:35:16 MEZ
Distribution: world
Organization: Private Waffle Site

tennis@cs.mcgill.ca (Pascal PROULX) writes:

> 
> ******************
> SOLUTION :
> ******************
> 
> Disable write-caching in SmartDrive. This is not a documented in the Windows
> Manual, but is ducomented in SmartDrive's help screen. To disable
> write-caching, modify the line in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file as shown below :

  Another way to solve this problem is to use the flush option of smartdrv
  at the end of the copyoperation, before rebooting.

                                                dieter

Dieter Fritzsche                                      dieter@dischw.toppoint.de
Maehlsweg 32 ,D-2300 Kiel 17, Germany                         Master of the WOM
Tel.: +49 431 362705 (Voice)        +49 431 361437 V32bis    (Login unreliable)
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:4705 comp.os.msdos.apps:4314
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: WARNING !!!!! MS WINDOWS 3.1 SmartDrive Problem
From: cctr132@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Nick FitzGerald, CSC, Uni. of Canterbury, NZ)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:16:58 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug13.202720.22761@serval.net.wsu.edu>,
mwoodwar@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (woodward matthew d - CS350) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.040731.2286@cs.mcgill.ca> George Mitchell (passed on)
> writes...
[George Mitchell's warning about smartdrive deleted]
> 
> George is correct that this is dangerous.  This, however, is neither a bug
> nor a problem with the Win 3.1 smartdrive program.  

I agree it's not a bug - some may disagree that it's not a problem.  To
make write-behind caching the -default- and --NOT-- clearly explain this
to users - many of whom will have no concept of what disk caching is,
let alone the potential problems of write-behind caching - is bordering
on negligent, IMHO.
 
> The problem is PC users who don't think before they flip the switch, and 

I thought you said there was no problem?

> Microsoft not trapping the warmboot vector to flush the cache before a 
> warmboot.

This is incorrect to the best of my knowledge.  With smartdrive loaded,
at DOS proper - not a DOS prompt run from inside Win31 - the keyboard to
screen response is slower on my 386/20-8MB than on an XT/4.77, much
slower.  I take this as evidence that smartdrive totally usurps the
keyboard for its own purposes - presumably to catch Ctrl/Alt/Del.  Once
Win31 is running it can drop this practice, as Windows does the reboot
checking for it and presumably signals smartdrive to flush its unwritten
buffers should the user actually insist on rebooting.

Anyone know better?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Nick FitzGerald, PC Applications Consultant, CSC, Uni of Canterbury, N.Z.
 n.fitzgerald@csc.canterbury.ac.nz    (64)(3)  642-337 Voice,  642-332 FAX
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: WARNING !!!!! MS WINDOWS 3.1 SmartDrive Problem
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:51:40 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Aug14.141659.328@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>  
cctr132@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Nick FitzGerald, CSC, Uni. of  
Canterbury, NZ) writes:
> I agree it's not a bug - some may disagree that it's not a problem.   
To
> make write-behind caching the -default- and --NOT-- clearly explain  
this
> to users - many of whom will have no concept of what disk caching  
is,
> let alone the potential problems of write-behind caching - is  
bordering
> on negligent, IMHO.

I thought they had explained it.  I think it is in the readme
file and is certainly in the manual.  I knew it from the first
time I installed Windows 3.1, and I didn't go out of my way 
looking for the info.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: dougb@novell.com (Doug Barlow)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Let's start a DR-DOS newsgroup- All in favor- say aye!
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:33:39 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., Provo, UT

Ok, maybe I'm a little biased since I work for Novell but I'm an end-user
just like the rest of you.  I wouldn't mind seeing a newsgroup about DR-DOS.
Then, all of the hard-core Microsoft users could stay in their group and
the rest of us have a place to go to discuss a better product. :-)

Seriously, I think that it would do a lot of good.  You'd be suprised how
many people at Novell read news about people's concerns about our product
line.  A lot of people wouldn't mind hearing what you think could be improved
and also what you like about a product.

Concerning DRDOS 6.0, what's the process for starting a new newsgroup? Would
someone like to take that responsibility to find out?
Do you like the name: comp.os.drdos?

Comments?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Barlow                   Email: DOUGB@NOVELL.COM
Novell, Inc.  Provo, UT
            The opinions expressed above are solely my own and
	    do not in any way represent the opinions of Novell, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: snowden@cray.com (Jim Snowden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Let's start a DR-DOS newsgroup- All in favor- say aye!
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:30:23 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

AYE!!

Jim Snowden
snowden@hemlock.cray.com
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:4770 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:2093
From: jliukkon@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Juha-Matti Liukkonen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: Why DOS 5.0 for Windows 3.1 ???
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:43:15 GMT
Distribution: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <1992Aug15.220853.13034@udel.edu> duzan@braindamaged.cis.udel.edu (Gary D. Duzan) writes:

>In article <sauron.713912919@femto.engr.mun.ca> sauron@nano.engr.mun.ca (Patrick Ryan) writes:
>=>If your use something like QEMM with it as well, the savings go a bit
>=>higher.  I can get 610464 bytes of memory free, and that's with
>=>soundcard drivers, mouse driver, ANSI...  I'm impressed.

623K conventional free, 140K upper memory free and you name it, it's
there!

>   Just make sure that you don't load SMARTDRV.EXE high. When I first
>set up 3.1 it was crashing quite regularly, which rather annoyed me since
>it was supposed to be more stable than 3.0. I traced the problem to
>SMARTDRV and 3.1 has behaved itself pretty well since then. (I'm still
>looking forward to poking around with OS/2 2.0, but that is another
>story. :-)

If I remember correctly, Smartdrv should be left alone to determine
whether it loads itself high or not (ie. no LOADHIGH commands with it).
When I used it, it did load itself high. I don't use it anymore, though,
because IMO it's a bit awkward (read: behaves oddly and I don't just
trust it) compared to Norton cache or PC-Cache (to name an example).

-- 
               Juha Liukkonen, aka jliukkon@cc.helsinki.fi
       University of Helsinki, Dept. of Paranormal Investigations
           "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer
From: evans1@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Dan Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Let's start a DR-DOS newsgroup- All in favor- say aye!
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:05:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


I vote yes to the DR DOS newsgroup.

It provides a forum for all the complants I've seen over this group
about SuperStor and DR DOS 6.0 crashing systems and causing corruption
on the hard drive.  I haven't had a lot of respect for DR since I pulled
GEM off my system.

Should that group be comp.sys.drdos.bugs?  Flames welcome.


-- 
The Danimal                @@@@-                    @@@@-            
                          @@@@@-      @@@@-        @@@@@-       @@@@-
UUCP: att!ihlpm!evans      @@@@-     @@@@@-         @@@@-      @@@@@-
                                      @@@@-                     @@@@-
From: jim@n5ial.chi.il.us (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Let's start a DR-DOS newsgroup- All in favor- say aye! 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 01:09:25 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized? Hah! :-)

In article <1992Aug14.203339.7139@novell.com> dougb@novell.com writes:

> Ok, maybe I'm a little biased since I work for Novell but I'm an end-user
> just like the rest of you.  I wouldn't mind seeing a newsgroup about DR-DOS.
> Then, all of the hard-core Microsoft users could stay in their group and
> the rest of us have a place to go to discuss a better product. :-)

> Do you like the name: comp.os.drdos?

no.  if anything, it should be part of the comp.os.msdos heirarchy,
IMHO, just like (and yes, I know that 4dos is not an operating system,
only a shell) comp.os.msdos.4dos.

I kinda like the idea, but then, I can't see that there would seriously
be enough discussion to justify a different newsgroup (then again, I
could be wrong!).

from what I've seen, most of the stuff in comp.os.msdos.* is more dos
in general, and not the microslop (IMHO) version, so what's the use?

there's also another thing to consider:  as one group, when someone
asks a question about ``why can't I do xyz?'' the answer is often
``you can't in msdos, but try DR Dos...'' --- that is exactly how I
learned about Digital Research Dos (the particular problem was the
fact that microslop took away the switchar functionality...dumped
'em in a hurry over that little mistake, and haven't regretted it
since).  I suspect the same applies to others, too.

can't really give a yes/no vote, as I'm personally undecided on this...
but hopefully these are things worth considering.

and in case I didn't insert it in enough places, just one more blanket
``IMHO'' to cover this entire post.
   --jim

--
Standard disclaimer....Ever since my cat learned to type, there's no telling
whose thoughts these really are....         73 DE N5IAL (/9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET:  jim@n5ial.chi.il.us  |  grahj@gagme.chi.il.us  |  j.graham@ieee.org
UUCP:  gagme!n5ial!jim@clout.chi.il.us
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@n9hsi (Chicago.IL.US.Earth)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.msdos.apps
From: Markku.Kaukinen@hut.fi (Markku Kaukinen)
Subject: Re: WARNING !!!!! MS WINDOWS 3.1 SmartDrive Problem
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<1992Aug13.202720.22761@serval.net.wsu.edu>
	<1992Aug14.141659.328@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
	<1992Aug14.152704.21495@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 92 10:53:11

In article <1992Aug14.152704.21495@cis.ohio-state.edu> cantor@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (scott eric cantor) writes:

> 
> 	Smartdrv does indeed trap Ctrl-Alt-Del and flush the buffer before
> rebooting.
> 
Yes it does, if you don't load a keyboard driver after that. I have
tested it with my machine and it traps Crlt-Alt-Del only if keyboard
driver is not loaded after smartdrv. (OK, this doesn't apply U.S.
people but rest of the world).


	-- Markku
--
Markku Kaukinen                    |    Tel +358 0 451 2471
Laboratory of Telecom. Technology  |    Fax +358 0 460 224
Helsinki University of Technology  |    Email: Markku.Kaukinen@hut.fi
Finland                            |
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: billy@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Billy McPherson)
Subject: Address for FATDOS author
Keywords: fatdos, fatvideo
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:25:42 GMT

I am looking for the address of the author of the FORTRAN library FATDOS.  He
seems to have moved from the address that came with the package itself.  The
address we have is  Marc Norton
                    PO BGox 425
                    Greenbelt, MD 20700

if anyone has a current address it would be greatly appreciated.

billy@alliant.uoknor.edu
From: u6064043@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Help needed for DOS5.0
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:47:26 GMT
Organization: The University of Melbourne

Hi Netters,

Recently I've installed DOS5.0 on my 386SX PC. However, two things
unexpected happened. 
(1) when I load DOS and some drivers into UMB and then check their
location by using mem /c, I only find about 30K UMB is used while 
according to DOS5 reference book there should be more than 100K UMB
available.
(2) when I load DOS and Smartdrive high and set EMM386 ram, I can't
start windows3.0

What's the problem? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Du
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: damien@erich.triumf.ca (DAMIEN GALLOP)
Subject: Re: Optimizing 386SX-16's for Windows
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:45:00 GMT

MB writes:

>Therefore what is needed is either:
>   (1) non-Windows applications that are just as good, or
>   (2) something faster than Windows that runs Windows apps.
> 
>Alternative 1 requires that we know what Windows apps are to be used
>and why they're needed.
> 
>I don't think alternative 2 exists ...

The new DESQview claims amazing things along this line. From a current ad:

"With DESQview you can run both DOS and MS Windows programs at the same time,
side by side (along with GEM and GEOS too, if you want). On any computer with
EMS 4 memory, even an 8088."

						All the best. Damien

email: damien@reg.triumf.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Keith Rice)
Subject: Re: DOS 5.0 bootup woes
Keywords: DOS5
Organization: University of North Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:02:48 GMT

In <GSPIEGEL.7.714410233@bsa1.kent.edu> GSPIEGEL@bsa1.kent.edu (Greg Spiegelberg) writes:

>We have an old AST 286 Inboard machine here that we're trying to upgrade 
>to DOS 5 and it doesn't want to boot up.  The drive is fine and so's the 
>machine.  It'll boot okay on the hard drive (DOS 3.3) though.

>Anyone run into any problems like this??

>-Greg

It sounds like you're trying to boot from the distribution floppy (or a
copy) from the MS-DOS 5.0 upgrade pack.  If so, you need to follow the
supplied installation instructions.  The upgrade requires that you have
an earlier version of MS-DOS installed (which you do).  It won't boot
straight from the floppy with the upgrade pack.

When all else fails, read the directions.

--
Keith
drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu
From: jjk1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Konsultant Josh/fuzzy.happy.green.box)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Floppy drive failure: help!
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:17:32 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BswLun.JJB@chinet.chi.il.us>, prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) writes:
>
>I'm having trouble with my b: drive on my 386DX, running DOS 5.0 and
>Windows 3.1. What happens is, whatever diskette I put in the b: drive,
>it reads fine; but then the second and all subsequent diskettes in the
>drive do not get read.

It sounds like the disk change detection switch in your drive is
stuck, malfunctioning, or broken.  On certain computers, you'll have
trouble if your CMOS is not aware of what drive you have; insure that
your setup is correct.  If you still have trouble, a bad disk change
switch is the most likely culprit.  Although not necessarily an easy
thing to do, you can test it by replacing the drive and seeing if a
different one works; there may also be a program somewhere which will
tell you if thinks are OK.  If it IS the switch, your only recourse is
going to be to have the drive repaired; it's a physical problem with
it.

--Josh

-- 
____________------------===========------------____________
                     from: Josh Kopper
                      jjk1@lehigh.edu
    
  Computer Engineering, EECS Department, Lehigh University

  Systems Programming - Lehigh University Computing Center
From: ajross@husc10.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Optimizing 386SX-16's for Windows
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:13:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.ajross.713844794

jjk1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Konsultant Josh/fuzzy.happy.green.box) writes:

>Regardless of the type of controller or interface you have, try
>turning on 32-bit disk access.  Although you might think you could not
>do so without a 32-bit controller, you can as long as the option is
>displayed.  It doesn't ALWAYS work, but with some combinations (most
>notably a WD controller), it gives a dramatic performance increase.
>The word from Tech Support at MS was that 32-bit disk access "doesn't
>really mean 32-bit disk access, it just makes Windows talk more
>directly to the hard drive and/or controller" (way to go, Bill, make
>them there options crystal clear to us :-)

Hey, making it all make sense...

Andy Ross
ajross@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:4766 comp.os.msdos.apps:4362
From: wright@osric.cs.odu.edu (GENTLEMAN)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: FAQ?
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:00:53 GMT
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA


	<1992Aug15.074707.24279@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug15.163252.31677@eecs.nwu.edu>
	<1992Aug16.012409.27976@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: 


Hi.  Can someone point me to the FAQ for this group.  I want to know 
if it is possible to obtain shareware via e-mail.  I hear of people doing
this for macs.  Can it be done for dos, too?  how?? 

Thanks

Wright
Director, Computer Music Lab
Governor's School for the Arts
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA
rwright@norfolk.vak12ed.edu
wright@cs.odu.edu
music@cs.odu.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.4dos:18 comp.os.msdos.programmer:8521
From: phil@cs.utexas.edu (Philip Smolen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.4dos,comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Patches to make BC++ 3.0 generated code 4DOS-aware
Date: 13 Aug 1992 14:01:18 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: muleshoe.cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: 4DOS, C, BC++ 3.0, setargv

In article <Bsq3rs.Dz0@wpi.WPI.EDU> nyh@wpi.WPI.EDU (Nevo Y Hed) writes:
>>findfirst() and findnext() have nothing to do with the shell.  They
>>are DOS interrupts (21/4E & 21/4F, respectively).  Unless you are
>>willing to invoke shell to search for each file, which would be
>>pathetically slow, there is nothing JP Software can do for you. 
>>You may use FCBs if you wish, they're faster... not any better though.
>
>BorlandC  has it's own, non-dos findfirst find-next.  I didn't do any
>reading on the difference.
>

That's not quite correct.  I was just looking at the source
code for firstfirst, findnext, _dos_findfirst, _dos_findnext.
Each one makes calls to the appropriate dos call (21/4e or
21/4f).  The only thing that they do on top of that is set
the DTA, restore the DTA, and translate the error message.
The only difference between the _dos_find's and the find's
is that they call different functions to translate from DOS's
error code to their own return values.

I don't know why they use different structure definitions
for the two types of functions.  They pass each structure
directly to DOS, then directly back to the caller.

					--Phil
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Summary: How to flush keyboard buffer
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:03:40 GMT
Keywords: Keyboard buffer, DOS

In article <3748@keele.keele.ac.uk> coa44@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Mark Scase) writes:
>
>Many thanks to all the people who replied to my recent question I
>posted in comp.os.msdos.programmer asking how to flush the keyboard
>buffer in Borland C under DOS.
>
>I received 3 different ways of flushing the keyboard buffer which
>worked.  They are:
>
>while (kbhit()) getch();
>while (bioskey(1)) bioskey(0);

These two are very likely the same thing.  If they are implemented in
the obvious way, however, they will miss keystrokes like F12.

>while (bioskey(1)) if (!getch()) getch();

This is a roundabout version of the others.  The difference is that if
an extended key (function or cursor key) is waiting in the buffer, it
will be flushed in one pass through the loop rather than two.  But
there's no advantage to that feature, and it makes the source program
longer.

I can understand why keyboard input is so confusing.  At a quick count I
see eight DOS and BIOS functions to take keystrokes from the buffer or
check the buffer for waiting keystrokes, or both.  No wonder people get
confused!

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                      brown@Ncoast.ORG

"Ingrate, n.  One who receives a benefit from another, or is otherwise
an object of charity."                          --Ambrose Bierce
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
From: dmurdoch@mast.queensu.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Subject: Re: 4DOS diversion (Was Re: A batch programming contest for you)
Organization: Queen's University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.132543.7617@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> rgc@swlrau.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE) writes:
>
>>The funny side of it is that it is almost predestined that when an
>>MsDos problem is posed some dedicated soul suggests using 4DOS. 
>
>On the other hand, the solution to perhaps half the msdos problems seems
>to be replacement of command.com by 4dos.  The solution to half the
>remaining half is replacement of msdos by drdos.  After that you need
>something like os2v2.  So it's not hard to replace msdos, but solving
>its problems takes 3 programs.

That's the problem - none of those programs are free. 4DOS costs about the 
same as a DOS 5 upgrade, so going to DOS 5 + 4DOS costs double just going to 
DOS 5, and using free utilities.  Then there are people like me, who 
collected most of the functionality of 4DOS in various little pieces over 
the years before it came out.  It would be silly to advocate that 
anyone else do it that way now, because 4DOS is much cheaper than 
the total of the half dozen programs I use instead, and working out all 
the conflicts would be a big waste of time.  

But it's also silly to suggest that I should switch to 4DOS, spending $80 
(or whatever) for no gain.  In fact it would be a loss for me:  Anarkey, for 
instance, does better command completion than 4DOS does.

Duncan Murdoch
dmurdoch@mast.queensu.ca
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.programmer:8534 alt.msdos.programmer:2202
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,alt.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: nonIBM compatibility problem/error?
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:17:34 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <l8e7ubINN4ji@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
>
>We have written a piece of software that uses a home-grown, text-mode
>windows library.  Our software drives several peripherals through 

[stuff deleted]

>Unfortunately, something is simply not working.  Our customer has the
>same software running on an IBM PS/2 with no problem.  But on the 
>above IBM-compatible, at a specific place in the code, the program
>consistently locks up.  We have gone over this area of the source 
>over and over again, and we can see nothing wrong till now.  Our
>guess at this point is that it is a hardware related problem - something
>is just not compatible.  Can anyone give us a hand?

To all of you who sent me email trying to help, I'd like to thank you.
In the end, the problem which caused us so much grief and worry, and
which made us examine the software more than three times, and in general
totally befuddled us turned out to be: The customer's keyboard was faulty!
He is now running the original software, and no failures have been
reported...

Sigh...
AAA
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.programmer:8720 comp.os.msdos.misc:4852