Re: CLIP Woes [Plus double cursor]

[Michael Norman michael.norman@xxxxxxxx]

At 12/30/2004 04:10 AM -0500, Robert Holmgren wrote:
** Reply to message from Michael Norman  on Wed,
29 Dec
2004 15:39:57 -0500

> Or should I simply have moved %SystemRoot%\system32
> forward

Of course. Move it forward. Or, now, delete #3. What in
the WORLD is the point of having two identical specs?
Wasn't sure they were identical. Just double-checking, that's all, which
seems prudent to do when one has made a number of errors, perhaps continues
to make them. Before I do anything I consult the several computer books I
have at hand, go to DejaNews, Experts Exchange. Much of the time I get the
answer. Sometimes it's not clear. So I posed the question here.
 To
slow down your comp[uer by checking the same directory
twice? Do you UNDERSTAND what the PATH spec is??

Yes.
 It
represents the order in which directories are searched to
find called files that lack fully specified D:\PATH\s....
First find represents the file that is used. Now, if you
do a COMP command C:\PROGRAM\FILES\THINKPAD\UTILITIES, e.g.
locate in UTILITIES and...
Robert, I assure you, I understand. And have. I only wanted to make sure of
two things: First, that *%SystemRoot%\system32* was the same as
*C:\WINDOWS\System32* -- I just wasn't sure about the % operators, whether
the syntax was permissible AT THE BEGINNING of a PATH statement. In other
words, I was trying to be careful.
Second, I did not want to disable things by moving them back in the PATH
before I had a chance to think about the things I was disabling. Of course
I don't need all those ThinkPad utilities -- who does? But I'm not going to
disable them until I've had time to work with the machine for a consistent
period. So, to put it as plainly as I can, all I was trying to do was be
careful to preserve what I had as I tried to troubleshoot my XyDos problems
and errors.
> Copied the new one over it, changed the various
> drive specs and variables, made sure the above was
> correct. And the routine worked. But...B...U...T

You know, I think we should appoint a committee to oversee,
and approve, every change you make to your system. Require
you to stand down in that capacity. Because this has been
going on as long as I can remember, there seems no end to
it, and I for one am tired. I don't experience your issues.
Nobody else mentions them.
Brian Henderson recently wrote: *Now that I've read a description, I recall
having seen this "double cursor" before. At first I figured it for some
sort of Windoze artifact. That it wasn't actually "there". Then I
remembered that since I had been (unsuccessfully) attempting to get the
mouse to work in Xy4, it may be related to wrong mouse settings. I never
pursued it cuz, being a Xy3 guy, it was just one more annoying Xy4 quirk.*
Again, all I want to do is get Xy working on MY XP laptop as flawlessly as
it works on my ancient W98SE machine, then return to my usual posture on
this list -- which, for the most part, is an occasional exchange.
 Here's the real problem: you're
trying to do some +|- sophisticated things, without really
understanding why you're doing them or what they really
accomplish, how they operate under the hood, what
interactions and ramifications they have, what they MEAN.
Because otherwise your system wouldn't be riddled, shot
through, with little problems like this. [I mean,
ScreenLength=26 lines!? What does that accomplish? That
_certainly_ was not in the original DFL created by XyQuest.
What are you thinking when you do that?] And it is _all_
user error (or if not 100%, darn close).

And that's cause for indictment? Open the jails, pal.
> 1. I REMed TAME from AUTOEXEC.NT, rebooted, started XY,
> invoked CLIP, and still had the double cursor.
> TAME is NOT the cause.

Why *reboot*? Just REM Tame in AUTOEXEC.NT, & launch new
DOS (XyWrite) session. It examples what I'm saying:
you don't *actually* understand how AUTOEXEC works!
Exactly. Like many nascents, I understand what it does, rather than how it
does it.
AUTOEXEC is launched by NTVDM. An NTVDM (VirtualDosMachine)
is opened each time you run a DOS program from a Shortcut
(from a Shortcut, mind you! not from a DOS Prompt, because
the DOS Prompt is *already* an NTVDM -- you gotta close
_that_ and reopen it to get a changed AUTOEXEC to "take").
When you close the DOS program, the NTVDM closes too (some
exceptions with malfunctioning Win3.x programs -- WOWEXEC
doesn't close). So if you want to test a different AUTOEXEC
configuration, close your DOS program, change AUTOEXEC, and
relaunch the DOS program. That's all.
And I knew this as well. But in my last go round with the double cursor, I
found that I could, say, eliminate it under some circumstances -- changing
this setting or that in either the PIF's properties or perhaps in a XY
setting somewhere, and the *improvement,* as it were, would disappear when
I turned the machine off and came back the next day. So I got into the
habit of rebooting when debugging cursor problems. Seemed to make sense.
I'm beginning to think, what I never thought before, that
users have no business tinkering with computer stuff that
they don't understand. I'm almost sympathetic to Microsoft,
which on August 26th of this year decided that they were
tired as hell of users who couldn't keep problematic files
from invading their computers, or of offering them choice in
this matter. So they introduced Windows Firewall -- and
that's the end of it. Clampdown/crackdown, like it or lump
it.
It is a fact: to run Xywrite IV successfully under Win32,
you must be fully conversant with DOS and how it is
implemented under Win32. Or at least -- no tinkering.
Either/or.
I know a bit about DOS. As you said, without the basics you simply can't
use XyWrite. Win32 I'm starting to learn. I know what I know, and to
invoke V.S. Naipal in this context, the world is what the world is -- which
is to say -- and for me it's this simple: XY is a tool, a tool I would
really like to keep using. It worked well in W98SE for me and I did not
think about it; I thought about the words that XyWrite was helping me put
on paper. I'm trying to get XY to work the same way in XP. I'm trying to
learn what I need to know to get it to work in XP. I'm making mistakes,
errors, lots of them. Some folks think that's part of learning.
Re double cursor, didn't we discuss this at great length at
the end of March? I seem to recall spending HOURS on it. I
recall that I was finally able to reproduce it by using a
PIF instead of a LNK, or v.v. -- I don't know anymore, there
was such a lot of nonsense about making PIFs "from Editor"
and the like -- but I *think* I recall that it turned out to
be incredibly minor. You were doing something wierd to
create PIFs, or launching apps directly by calling the PIF
name (jeesh), or something like that, I dunno. Didn't
double-cursor disappear if you shelled to DOS like this:
 BX dos/nv/x/z /c exitQ2 ;*;
You said that when you took DFL out of STARTUP, you had no
problems: no double cursor, no frozen full screen, no
nothing. You yourself concluded there was something wrong
in your DFL. I am fully prepared to believe that. I
suggest you review that whole thread, called "XY in DosBox
(XP)". You also said you got garbage when you shelled to
DOS. I infer that your whole setup was, and may still be, a
disaster site. We are re-visiting well-trodden ground here.
Yes, and no. I've reviewed the posts you mention, but can't find the one
where you were, in fact, able to reproduce the phenomenon. I'll keep
looking -- I'm sure it's there. As I said above, my XP setup needed work.
Some of what I did, got rid the double-cursor on startup. Now trying to
use CLIP has produced the double cursor again -- in effect CLIP exposed
another error somewhere in my setup. So I've started all over again,
checking what I know to check, the basics: my PATH statement, STARTUP.INT,
U2's REG file and so on. Since I recently discovered the AS error in my
keyboard file, I've started staring at that for a while. Now I think I'll
just comment out one at a time every line in SETTINGS.DFL and see what that
produces. If you know another way to do all this without leaving the ground
well-trodden, I'm all ears.
Do me a favor. Take a deep breath. Step back for a few
days. Don't post five times tomorrow. Do some experiments
on your own. Think about your situation, then post one
considered summary. I need a vacation from this. Apart
from being uninteresting and unilluminating to me or anyone
else, it amounts to abuse. I just snapped; I have creative
projects I'd like to pursue. But I'm also telling truth
here. Unpleasant truth.
Robert, as I and others have said so often here, we always appreciate your
help, admire the expertise you have developed. And we know you offer that
skill and advice quantum vis. What else is there to say? Meanwhile, I
reckon that if anyone here finds any of this, or any other post,
uninteresting, unilluminating or abusive, they'll just hit the trash button
or the delete key or issue an execration I can't hear.
Still, I take your last point; you think the topic is cluttering the list.
So let's leave it here, and I'll just say, thanks, again.

Michael Norman
-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------