Re: dumb Tame question

[Michael Norman michael.norman@xxxxxxxx]

At 1/3/2005 05:35 PM -0500, Bill Troop wrote:
> I tried out Tame a couple of years ago, and didn't see that it did
> anything for me, so I stopped using it. However, recently, whatever I have
> done to my XP system, it does tend to slow down to an unusable extent
> after a couple of hours. In an unsuccessful attempt to isolate the problem
> (could it be the latest build of Opera? or just the dreaded 'OS
> fatigue?'), I am not currently running AV software. Could the problem
> really be XyWrite and could it be solved by Tame? Looking at Task Manager
> processes doesn't seem to tell me anything useful but, on the other hand,
> I don't really know how to read the information. I am sure this post will
> cause many to grit their collective teeth so all I ask is a simple - shall
> I use Tame or not? - and if yes, I will simply follow the installation
> directions and cautions from the latest thread which, I must admit, are a
> little off-putting.
If they are, Bill, I'll take the blame for that. Forgot all my posts -- and
the one that is forthcoming -- on screen anomalies. TAME, as Jon Pareles
recently reported, works well. I have XyDos running in a DosBox/DosWindow
under XP SP2 with TAME and it's just as smooth and quick as under W98SE.
(You'll have to adjust Mode Con: repeat and delay, but this too is a snap.)
And it's easy to install. Just execute the .exe file, which puts a few keys
in Windows Registry and adds a line and some information to AUTOEXEC.NT.
That's it. No switches to throw, unless you want to. And Dave Thomas, the
author, could not be more accommodating. Several folks here have
corresponded with him.

Michael Norman