2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) (11/13/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Does anyone have the address to use to patch the environment space in DOS 3,1? The address for DOS 3.0 [cs:0f2b] is not correct for 3.1. (I am aware of the undocumented /e option in the SHELL command, but prefer a hard patch rather than an undocumented, likely to change, feature) Max S. Robin AT&T Bell Laboratories Rm 3E-318A Whippany, NJ 07981 201-386-6865 email:whuxg!2212msr
jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (11/14/85)
In article <373@whuts.UUCP> 2212msr@whuts.UUCP (Max ROBIN) writes: >Does anyone have the address to use to patch the environment >space in DOS 3,1? The address for DOS 3.0 [cs:0f2b] is not >correct for 3.1. (I am aware of the undocumented /e option >in the SHELL command, but prefer a hard patch rather than an >undocumented, likely to change, feature) This makes no sense at all. You prefer using a patch that will change with every release rather than using an option that will probably continue to exist, saying that you'd rather not use an "undocumented, likely to change" feature?
broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (11/14/85)
In article <373@whuts.UUCP> 2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) writes: >(I am aware of the undocumented /e option >in the SHELL command, but prefer a hard patch rather than an >undocumented, likely to change, feature) > addresses for hard patches are more volatile than undocumented features, I suspect...
andy@sdcarl.UUCP (Andrew Voelkel) (11/22/85)
>>correct for 3.1. (I am aware of the undocumented /e option >>in the SHELL command, but prefer a hard patch rather than an Some of us out here have experienced the problem but don't know about the /e option of the shell command. I'd say that for most of us, the 992 bytes or whatever is plenty. Could someone post how to use the /e option? -- Andrew Voelkel {ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax}!sdcarl!andy