On Nov 23, 6:24*am, John Tserkezis
wrote:
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

* Seriously, am I missing something, or is this software running for the
sake of some old software that won't run on anything else?

* I went so far as re-writing some very fussy VB Win16 software that
flatly refused to run on anything other than Win3.1 (this was in the
Win'98 era, and we didn't have any 3.1 boxes left).
* Ironically, I wrote the "new" code in pascal (DOS based software),
which in all likelyhood pre-dated that VB compiler) AND I had to reverse
engineer the RS232 communications protocols (the hard way) even though
the original software came from the company I was working for anyway.
(obsolete product, and couldn't find the source backups).

* *That's* how far I'd go before trying to bring old hardware back to life.
--
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.

This incompatibility issue between one era and another really ****es
me off. Some of us just live a simple life and really only just need
the basics for certain things. But they've managed to engineer it so
that nothing old will work with anything new anymore. This is no
accident I'm convinced. What puzzles me though is that It seems like
I've done this before. I know that I've used 98 with 6.2 on the same
computer, (well different computers when one crapped out), for years.
Some of them were smaller hard drives like a few hundred meg or so.
Could that have changed anything? I may not have ever noticed this
discrepancy between what Bios is saying is there and what "My
Computer" actually shows. And this other issue. I can never get to my
D or my E drive in Dos. I really don't want to have to access my Dos
programs through Windows however if I'm running a Dos program would I
be able to see everything and get to them if I went to a Dos prompt
from 98? Thanks, Lenny