Re: CALLUP

[Michael Norman michael.norman@xxxxxxxx]

At 12/27/2004 11:55 PM -0500, Robert Holmgren wrote:
>  I get a *Path not found* message. In other words, I
> > can't go up a directory level.
>
> Aw, come on. We've been over and over this, as recently as last week.


Careful, there, fella...a Reading is always reading.

> See particularly:
>  http://users.datarealm.com/xywwweb/xysearch.cgi?xywrite/2004/msg00477.htm
> Or do a XySearch for "archive bit". Use DArchBit.CMD.


Grabbed it. Thanks. Frankly, although I read all the posts, they don't all
register, especially during the work day. Same with the blinking
Customization Guide, have read it for years and still have to look up the
same things "over and over." When I'm using XY and it's working without a
hitch, I simply don't think about the program. Yes, I understand that the
basics of both DOS and XPL, WIN scripting language too, are a grammar we
should know. I just don't work with that grammar often enough to retain
enough of it to keep current. And without the right grammar, sometimes,
sometimes I miss essential posts in the archives. I reckon I'm not alone in
this. I work ON XY during breaks, but those breaks tend to come after long
intervals of working only WITH XY. I've been trying to migrate XY from
W98SE to XP for several days now, my fourth or fifth such effort across
more than a year. With every effort, and with every step, I have to
re-learn many of the basics. And, frankly, without the list and the
willingness of folks here to tolerate (suffer) the remedial nature of so
many of the questions, I'd be stuck, and so would the host of the other
nascents on the list. Hence the many benedictions here to you and Carl and
Patricia and the others who offer advice, counsel and guidance, over and
over again. We appreciate it.


> other thing I forgot to mention: I don't say, or think, that Tame is
> perfect. But we have a real strong history here of denouncing in a Page One
> headline, and then subsequently publishing a retraction (or merely an implicit
> retraction, which requires that you have read carefully and followed the whole
> thread) on page 27. A LOT of things have suffered, been denounced, and been
> branded in the minds of our thousands of more casual attendees as "not worth
> the potential trouble". In the case of Tame, I think for XP users who run
> in a
>
> Desktop window, and for many others too, Tame is well worth the trouble, and
> the expense (US$19).


Actually this time the opposite happened. When Jon Pareles mentioned a few
days back that he'd discovered TAME on Uwe Sieber's site, he found it
worked well and wondered if he was hallucinating. I wondered too, gave it
another try, and was delighted it worked. At all events, I agree with you
about the posts -- because they are serial you often miss the bottom line.
So, for the record, I bought TAME, it eliminated all the...what does Jon
call it?...twitchiness of XY in an XP DosBox; it did it out of the box
without having to set any of the switches in its easy-to-understand
defaults file. In fact, I too had to throttle back Mode Con: rate & delay.


Michael Norman





> -----------------------------
> Robert Holmgren
> holmgren@xxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------