dalegass@dalcs.UUCP (03/27/87)
---------------------------------------------------------- During the discussion on TSR's a while back someone had mentioned that Microsoft would be putting together guidelines for people to follow in order to put a halt to TSR interference. The writer said that they were supposed to be ready in Nov '86 and that it was already late. I am currently writing a TSR and wish to be in compliance with the guidlines. Does anyone know if they have completed this document and where I can get it. While I'm at it, does anyone have a 'default echo off' patch for command.com in PC-DOS 3.2 Please ? (Note: PC-DOS) As always anyone else who wants this, email me and I will post if there is sufficient interest or email otherwise. -Jeff Scrutton uucp: stars!moon::scrutton@dalcs.uucp -----------------------------------------------------------------
tr@thumper.UUCP (03/30/87)
In article <2483@dalcs.UUCP>, dalegass@dalcs.UUCP writes: > [...] > While I'm at it, does anyone have a 'default echo off' > patch for command.com in PC-DOS 3.2 Please ? (Note: PC-DOS) > [...] > > -Jeff Scrutton Here is how to set echo off as the default in PC-DOS version 3.2. You can turn it back on in batch files using an "echo on" statement. C>debug command.com -e 1b2c xxxx:1b2c 01.00 -w Writing 5CEF bytes -q C> -- Tom Reingold Internet: tr@bellcore.com Uucp: ..!allegra!ulysses!faline!flash!tr
authorplaceholder@gorgo.UUCP.UUCP (04/01/87)
/* Written 11:42 am Mar 27, 1987 by dalegass@dalcs.UUCP in gorgo.UUCP:comp.sy.ibm.pc */ /* ---------- "TSR standard" ---------- */ ---------------------------------------------------------- During the discussion on TSR's a while back someone had mentioned that Microsoft would be putting together guidelines for people to follow in order to put a halt to TSR interference. The writer said that they were supposed to be ready in Nov '86 and that it was already late. I am currently writing a TSR and wish to be in compliance with the guidlines. Does anyone know if they have completed this document and where I can get it. While I'm at it, does anyone have a 'default echo off' patch for command.com in PC-DOS 3.2 Please ? (Note: PC-DOS) As always anyone else who wants this, email me and I will post if there is sufficient interest or email otherwise. -Jeff Scrutton uucp: stars!moon::scrutton@dalcs.uucp ----------------------------------------------------------------- /* End of text from gorgo.UUCP:comp.sy.ibm.pc */ This project is definately "full steam ahead", and all the participants can be found on CompuServe in the Computer Languages Magazine SIG. The only one of the team I'm personally acquainted with is Jim Kyle, the SIG's sysop. Jim can tell you everything you want to know; reach him either on CIS, or call him (he's listed in the Okla City phone book, and there's only one 'Jim Kyle' listed - that's area code 405). From what I've heard from Jim, Borland is working on a new version of SideKick that will be in full compliance with the new standards (which means it won't be so mean 'n' nasty on your dos, and you'll be able to use it with other TSR's without forever crashing). I hope the rest of the world takes notice, and follows suit. Sure would make life a lot easier. David Drexler ihnp4!occrsh!gorgo!ddrex
john@viper.UUCP (04/05/87)
In article <58200029@gorgo.UUCP> ddrex@gorgo.UUCP writes: > >This project is definately "full steam ahead", and all the participants >can be found on CompuServe in the Computer Languages Magazine SIG. The only >one of the team I'm personally acquainted with is Jim Kyle, the SIG's sysop. >Jim can tell you everything you want to know; reach him either on CIS, or >call him (he's listed in the Okla City phone book, and there's only one 'Jim >Kyle' listed - that's area code 405). > >From what I've heard from Jim, Borland is working on a new version of SideKick >that will be in full compliance with the new standards (which means it won't >be so mean 'n' nasty on your dos, and you'll be able to use it with other >TSR's without forever crashing). > >I hope the rest of the world takes notice, and follows suit. Sure would make >life a lot easier. > David, since not all of us are regulars (or even occasional visitors to CIS or even to the CLM sig, how about telling us more about the standard? I would welcome a fairly substantial description. If others are interested any chance you could get the description from CIS and post it for us? (Or send it to the one or two (hehe) people who express an interest...(?) --- John Stanley (john@viper.UUCP) Software Consultant - DynaSoft Systems UUCP: ...{amdahl,ihnp4,rutgers}!{meccts,dayton}!viper!john