slc1290@hare.udev.cdc.com (steve chesney x4662) (11/17/90)
Under DOS 4.01, SHARE is loaded automaticly if you have a disk partition greater than 32 MB. When I tried out 4DOS to replace COMMAND.COM, this did not happen, but I did get an error message informing me that SHARE is needed for large devices. THe MS-DOS documentation seems to imply that SHARE is needed mostly for file concurrency with networks and (my inference) multi-tasking or application switching. If I don't do networks or use the same file from two applications at the same time do I need it? My disk is 66 Meg. I wouldn't care except SHARE uses 6k + and it seems to force Super PCKWIK disk cache to grow 9k! (Anybody know why PCKWIK grows with SHARE)??? Thanks. Steve Chesney Control Data Corporation slc1290@hare.udev.cdc.com
gettys@regent.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys N1BRM) (11/18/90)
In article <28733@shamash.cdc.com>, slc1290@hare.udev.cdc.com (steve chesney x4662) writes... >Under DOS 4.01, SHARE is loaded automaticly if you have a disk partition >greater than 32 MB. When I tried out 4DOS to replace COMMAND.COM, this >did not happen, but I did get an error message informing me that SHARE >is needed for large devices. THe MS-DOS documentation seems to imply that >SHARE is needed mostly for file concurrency with networks and (my inference) >multi-tasking or application switching. If I don't do networks or use the >same file from two applications at the same time do I need it? My disk is >66 Meg. > >I wouldn't care except SHARE uses 6k + and it seems to force Super PCKWIK >disk cache to grow 9k! (Anybody know why PCKWIK grows with SHARE)??? > >Thanks. > >Steve Chesney Control Data Corporation slc1290@hare.udev.cdc.com SHARE does a number of things (such as those you iterated), but the reason you need to load it with 4.01 is that some older programs still use the old FAT routines and these don't know about the newer FAT that can accomodate >32 meg partitions. This can result in a corrupted FAT and severe loss of data. It is very prudent to foolow the reccomendation of 4.01 and load it. /s/ Bob Gettys
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (11/20/90)
In article <28733@shamash.cdc.com> slc1290@hare.udev.cdc.com (steve chesney x4662) writes: >Under DOS 4.01, SHARE is loaded automaticly if you have a disk partition >greater than 32 MB. When I tried out 4DOS to replace COMMAND.COM, this >did not happen, but I did get an error message informing me that SHARE >is needed for large devices. THe MS-DOS documentation seems to imply that >SHARE is needed mostly for file concurrency with networks and (my inference) >multi-tasking or application switching. If I don't do networks or use the >same file from two applications at the same time do I need it? My disk is >66 Meg. A popular question that, which makes sense since MS didn't exactly go out of their way to document the answer.. SHARE is needed for FCB support (emulation of old calls or something) on disks with large partitions. Without it, FCB calls can trash the disk. I use NOSHARE from Simtel20 instead, which merely causes FCB usage attempts to fail without harming anything. It is MUCH smaller than SHARE, and thus far has only caught one offending program.. so you don't miss much by not having SHARE loaded, and NOSHARE protects ya from abuse. -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
ernst_witter@eva.slu.se (11/22/90)
In article <4927@bwdls58.UUCP>, mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: > SHARE is needed for FCB support (emulation of old calls or something) on disks > with large partitions. Without it, FCB calls can trash the disk. I wish it was so! I actually wasn't aware that SHARE was specifically needed in order for the FCB calls to be correctly handled. I do have a program (Caxton's Cardbox, a simple but very efficient and fast indexing/database program - by the way it takes only 48k of memory which is one of the reasons I stick with it) which does use FCB calls. I run it on a 386SX with a 132Mb hard disk. All works fine until I try to run it from Windows, and then after some time it will nearly alway crash with a DOS error message saying that there are no available FCB's. This happens no matter to what number I set the FCB handles in my config.sys, and how many of those I lock. A mistery to me. Can somebody also tell me that if SHARE is automatically loaded if you have a disk with a single partition > 32Mb, that if I specify to load SHARE in my autoexec.bat I do no get a message saying that it is already loaded (which presumably it should have been), but if I load it twice in the autoexec.bat or from the command line I do the second time get a message that SHARE is already loaded. One more mistery. Ernst Witter
charlie@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM (Charlie Duke) (11/27/90)
Re: NOSHARE Exactly where is NOSHARE on SIMTEL20, or, more specifically, wuarchive, which is a mirror(?) of SIMTEL20 for mere mortals. Charlie Duke
gettys@regent.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys N1BRM) (11/27/90)
In article <7266.274b879a@eva.slu.se>, ernst_witter@eva.slu.se writes... >Can somebody also tell me that if SHARE is automatically loaded if you >have a disk with a single partition > 32Mb, that if I specify to load SHARE >in my autoexec.bat I do no get a message saying that it is already loaded >(which presumably it should have been), but if I load it twice in the >autoexec.bat or from the command line I do the second time get a message that >SHARE is already loaded. One more mistery. > >Ernst Witter SHARE is NOT!!! loaded automatically. YOU must put it in your CONFIG.SYS as a line INSTALL=C:\DOS\SHARE.EXE where C:\DOS\ is the location of the SHARE.EXE file. Then it will be loaded "automatically" at boot time. /s/ Bob Gettys
jimf@idayton.field.intel.com (Jim Fister) (11/29/90)
>>Can somebody also tell me that if SHARE is automatically loaded if you >>have a disk with a single partition > 32Mb, that if I specify to load SHARE >>in my autoexec.bat I do no get a message saying that it is already loaded >>(which presumably it should have been), but if I load it twice in the >>autoexec.bat or from the command line I do the second time get a message that >>SHARE is already loaded. One more mistery. > SHARE is NOT!!! loaded automatically. YOU must put it in your >CONFIG.SYS as a line INSTALL=C:\DOS\SHARE.EXE where C:\DOS\ is the location of >the SHARE.EXE file. Then it will be loaded "automatically" at boot time. When you install shell (=[path]command.com), the system checks for the presence of share in the same directory. If it finds it, it loads it. When you try to install on the command line, you get the message. That's why the DOS 4.01 install package uses the command.com in the DOS directroy. At least, that's what Microsoft finally told me. Standard disclaimer. I'm too independant to speak for my company. Greetings from the Rocking Metropolis. JimF
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (11/30/90)
In article ... gettys@regent.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys N1BRM) writes: > >In article <7266.274b879a@eva.slu.se>, ernst_witter@eva.slu.se writes... >>Can somebody also tell me that if SHARE is automatically loaded if you >>have a disk with a single partition > 32Mb, that if I specify to load SHARE > > SHARE is NOT!!! loaded automatically. YOU must put it in your >CONFIG.SYS as a line INSTALL=C:\DOS\SHARE.EXE... Hmm.. With my plain vanilla MS-DOS 4.01, the docment clearly states that DOS attempts to load SHARE automatically if I have any DOS partitions > 32MB, and in fact, that is exactly what I have observed in practice. One can use Quarterdeck MFT to verify this. However, DOS tries to load SHARE.EXE from the same directory as used on the SHELL= line in config.sys, or from the root directory of the boot drive/partition if there is no SHELL= line. If one is using 4dos instead of command.com, or any other 2nd party shell program, odds are pretty good that DOS will be unable to find/load SHARE. -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (11/30/90)
In numerous articles ... Many Many Many People write: > Exactly where is NOSHARE on SIMTEL20, or, more specifically, wuarchive, >which is a mirror(?) of SIMTEL20 for mere mortals. Actually, NOSHARE.COM does not appear to be at Simtel20.. I must have gotten it elsewhere.. ?? Anyway, here it is, in all of its glory: begin 644 noshare.com MZ0@`]`$`````"@"\FA_'!@4!F!^]_A^)+@<!_.@Z`+@`3,TA`````(#\#W0*A M@/P6=`4N_RZ``+#_SUY86EL>CMNT)<TA'__FM#7-(8G8C,/#N@H`N``QS2'HN M2@`'3D]32$%21>A1`.@\``M">2!4;VT@06QM>>@_`+@A`.C)_Z,D`8D>)@&Z' M)`%2NH``4KH6`%+H40",R%"ZA`!2NB$`4NB7_^FK_UN*!S#D0U-0`<-86E.)( MT^DA`+@-`.@)`+@*`.D#``$``*+&`;1`N0$`NL8!BQ[$`<TAPXG!B=J+'L0!4 3M$#-(<-;65]>XP:,V([`\Z3_XZ+&2 `` end size 244 -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
charlie@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM (Charlie Duke) (12/01/90)
> SHARE is NOT!!! loaded automatically. YOU must put it in your > CONFIG.SYS as a line INSTALL=C:\DOS\SHARE.EXE where C:\DOS\ is the location of > the SHARE.EXE file. Then it will be loaded "automatically" at boot time. Well, but, the manual for 4.01 says that SHARE is loaded by simply issuing the command SHARE<cr>, without any mention of installing it via CONFIG.SYS. Can anyone explain? Charlie Duke
dorsai@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Gregory D. Moncreaff) (12/03/90)
In article <26120002@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM> charlie@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM (Charlie Duke) writes: > > Well, but, the manual for 4.01 says that SHARE is loaded by simply issuing >the command SHARE<cr>, without any mention of installing it via CONFIG.SYS. >Can anyone explain? > >Charlie Duke both methods load SHARE, but INSTALLing it in your CONFIG.SYS takes care of that annoying startup message as well....
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (12/03/90)
In article <26120002@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM> charlie@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM (Charlie >> SHARE is NOT!!! loaded automatically. YOU must put it in your >> CONFIG.SYS as a line INSTALL=C:\DOS\SHARE.EXE where C:\DOS\ is the locat >> the SHARE.EXE file. Then it will be loaded "automatically" at boot time. > > Well, but, the manual for 4.01 says that SHARE is loaded by simply issuing >the command SHARE<cr>, without any mention of installing it via CONFIG.SYS. 1. Share installation doe NOT have to be specified in config.sys. 1a. if share.(exe ?) is in the root directory it will automatically be loaded 1b. if share is in the directory pointed to for command.com it MAY (should) be automatically loaded (I didn't try this but am told it does ...). 1c. share may be installed in the config.sys as shown above 1d. share MAY (should) be able to be installed in the autoexec.bat or at the dos prompt (according to the manual). 2. Share is intended for a network environment where different 'jobs' may use the hard disk, and leave the head in a unexpected place. Share is kinda like a hard disk driver (aka dmdrvr.bin) which tries to parse disk I/O to see that no application does a unexpected write or read to the disk. (That's ok, it doesn't work with windows, windows will happily crash the extended partition anyway...) al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
draper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec3.041914.27015@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >2. Share is intended for a network environment where different 'jobs' may use > the hard disk, and leave the head in a unexpected place. Share is kinda > like a hard disk driver (aka dmdrvr.bin) which tries to parse disk I/O > to see that no application does a unexpected write or read to the disk. > (That's ok, it doesn't work with windows, windows will happily crash the > extended partition anyway...) >al > > Please elaborate on this "crashing the extended partition" stuff. I recall several people posting about Windows trashing their hard disk -- including me, but there were no informed responses. I think the file manager is causing the problems, but I can't verify this. I don't use the file manager anymore, and I haven't had any trouble. Thanks in advance, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Draper In times like these it is helpful to buster.cps.msu.edu remember that there have always been times like these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
schuster@cup.portal.com (Michael Alan Schuster) (12/04/90)
Did compaq DOS 3.31 (and others like it) require SHARE for >32 MB partitions? If not ... why not? Was it part of the kernal as in DOS 5?
david.deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG (David Deitch) (12/04/90)
What exactly is NOSHARE?
David Deitch (GIS)
deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org
1:133/411@fidonet
18:716/411@keshernet
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Deitch - via FidoNet node 1:133/411
UUCP: galbp!gisatl!david.deitch
INTERNET: david.deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORGkd@doc.ic.ac.uk (K Dryllerakis) (12/05/90)
In article <26120002@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM>, charlie@hp-lsd.COS.HP.COM (Charlie Duke) writes: |> > SHARE is NOT!!! loaded automatically. YOU must put it in your |> > CONFIG.SYS as a line INSTALL=C:\DOS\SHARE.EXE where C:\DOS\ is the location of |> > the SHARE.EXE file. Then it will be loaded "automatically" at boot time. |> |> Well, but, the manual for 4.01 says that SHARE is loaded by simply issuing |> the command SHARE<cr>, without any mention of installing it via CONFIG.SYS. |> Can anyone explain? |> |> Charlie Duke It is interesting that DOS 4.01 loads SHARE automatically in my 386 PC with a 40 MB hard disk. I need NOT specify either a SHARE command under tha command shell OR load it from within the CONFIG.SYS. It seems to be able to detect the presence of large media and install SHARE automatically. K J Dryllerakis Imperial College Computing Department
KRW1@Lehigh (12/06/90)
Here is something I came across explaining why SHARE is necessary.
Be sure to read through to the punch line; apparently it is rather
important to use.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DOS 4.01 SHARE Service Question
===============================
I know the purpose of SHARE in multi-user, multi-tasking and
network environments. But MS-DOS 4.01 seems to feel that SHARE
must be loaded just because a Large-Partition is defined. It
may be loaded either via the INSTALL command in the CONFIG.SYS
file or as a TSR in the AUTOEXEC.BAT file. But if you have a
DOS partition over 32 MB's and you don't install SHARE you
generate a DOS "WARNING....." message. DOS even goes so far
that if you have not installed SHARE it will search the root
directory for it and then AUTO-LOAD it !! Now THAT is a real
first ! Why...
I ran without it for months on a 100MB partition with absolutely
no problem. Then I got afraid of that constant boot-up warning
and put it back in my CONFIG file. Of course it is a pain at times
because it can interfere with reasonable desired file access-
such as backing up a file that has not been openned with the proper
Shared Read access by the owning TSR program. Not that you want to
actually back that file up but that it causes an error msg and
requires an operator response to continue. That's all fine for
the original intended purpose of SHARE but now what does it do for
partitions over 32 MB that is not needed in <32 MB partitions ?
Anybody know ?
Remember it's NOT required to operate with Large Partitions. I've
run for months without it... what was I missing ?
-Ric
-----------------------------------
Well like so many I made the trek to COMDEX a few weeks ago and
gave some effort to finding the answer to this profound question
of life and the need to SHARE. Microsoft didn't know the answer.
IBM was staffed by a techie who said "I really don't know the
answer to that, I just include it too." So I insisted and persisted
and made many at the IBM stand feel increasingly squirmy as nobody
knew the answer. How stupid they must have felt that somebody
was here asking a dumb DOS question when "we" all knew it nolonger
mattered... that OS/2 was now the Real Thing.
THEN one day they gave a freebie day at COMDEX to an original DOS
programmer who worked on DOS 4.01 ! He quietly and completely
explained the answer... It's VERY interesting.
~~~~
If you use "modern" programs all the time, you may have
never run into problems using Large-Partitions (over 32MB)
without SHARE loaded. But beware...
The deal is that the old file FCB's cannot hold pointer
information in it's "reserved fields", on files that are
located on disk locations past 32MB's. When used in a
Large-Partition environment, FCB's can be okay as long as
the file is physically WITHIN the 32MB range of the partition.
However if part of the file is past the 32MB range, say in
the 38th megabyte area of the partition, the FCB doesn't
chuck-up or give an error, it just rolls the pointer value
over, thru zero, and gives DOS a new garbage value as an
internal disk pointer. The next disk read gives junk to
your program, the next disk write corrupts your disk.
It's Great Fun.
The reason SHARE is the solution is because it was already
doing the required fix for a different reason in small
partitions. To give file sharing protection in multi-user
environments SHARE would make a copy of a program's FCB in
a new local copy within SHARE and perform the file open from
SHARE's copy of the FCB. In so doing, it technically owned
the file and could effectively perform traffic-cop duty
regarding multi-access activity on the file.
Since old programs using hard coded FCB's had to be given a
way to run in Large-Partitions something had to be done to
the FCB disk pointer problem. The solution was to copy the
original FCB from within the program to a new "extended" format
of the FCB that would be in control by the operating system.
The extended form of the FCB with larger fields would be able
to support Large-Partitions, and any other extensions in the
future.
This FCB copy capability was already in existance in the
current SHARE facility. SHARE was just upgraded to not just
copy the FCB into it's own area for file access control but to
copy it into an extended FCB format, when applicable, for
Large-Partition access.
As nobody knows the internal code of the program's they run
everyday, you can never be positive if a program is using File
Handles via Extended File IO or old FCB's. (Actually, if you
can specify a path, it's 99.44% likely to be extended file IO
using a File Handle.) Since the use of FCB's in Large-Partions,
when accessing the disk area past 32 MB will corrupt the poor
user's disk, IBM said: "this is serious", and even forced the
bootup process to automatically search for SHARE in the root
directory if it had not been explicitly loaded in the config file.
Ahhhh.... and that explains why such "modern" people as myself
who had used only "modern" programs with File Handles (no FCB's)
never had any problems.
Right. But not completely safe.
Just lucky. The reason SHARE is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY in systems
using Large-Partitions is this:
My IBM DOS programmer says that even today DOS itself still
uses some old FCB's internally for some unspecified internal
disk functions !
God help us, Microsoft sure didn't.
DOS still runs some original DOS 1.1 file access code that
REQUIRES SHARE in order not to, on some day, wipe out your
hard disk !!!
So if you're getting the SHARE WARNING at bootup friends, stick
it back in your config file, or just put it in the root directory
of you're C drive, and just eat the bytes it takes in memory...
Fact is, we've got no choice.
-Ric
------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted to distribute in unmodified form.
Copyright (C) 1990 RainTree Computer Systems.mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (12/07/90)
In article <05129019:48:27KRW1@lehigh.bitnet> KRW1@Lehigh writes: ...excellent explanation omitted... <So if you're getting the SHARE WARNING at bootup friends, stick <it back in your config file, or just put it in the root directory <of you're C drive, and just eat the bytes it takes in memory... <Fact is, we've got no choice. No choice, that is, other than running a SHARE replacement program such as NOSHARE.COM (see below). This program takes over handling of of FCB disk I/O, and simply causes all attempts to use FCBs for disk I/O to fail, with appropriate error/result/status codes. Since practically nobody needs FCB calls to work, this is a dandy solution, and it prevents anything using FCBs from damaging the file structures, including DOS itself. begin 644 noshare.com MZ0@`]`$`````"@"\FA_'!@4!F!^]_A^)+@<!_.@Z`+@`3,TA`````(#\#W0*A M@/P6=`4N_RZ``+#_SUY86EL>CMNT)<TA'__FM#7-(8G8C,/#N@H`N``QS2'HN M2@`'3D]32$%21>A1`.@\``M">2!4;VT@06QM>>@_`+@A`.C)_Z,D`8D>)@&Z' M)`%2NH``4KH6`%+H40",R%"ZA`!2NB$`4NB7_^FK_UN*!S#D0U-0`<-86E.)( MT^DA`+@-`.@)`+@*`.D#``$``*+&`;1`N0$`NL8!BQ[$`<TAPXG!B=J+'L0!4 3M$#-(<-;65]>XP:,V([`\Z3_XZ+&2 `` end As you can see, NOSHARE.COM is much much smaller than SHARE, and can be loaded easily from your AUTOEXEC.BAT file. But be sure to remove SHARE.EXE from the root directory and also from the directory holding COMMAND.COM (unless you use 4DOS instead), to prevent DOS from automatically finding and loading it also (waste of mem). You'll know you've done it right as long as you are still getting the WARNING: SHARE MUST BE LOADED FOR LARGE MEDIA messages (or whatever they say). -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (12/14/90)
In article <2620@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> kd@doc.ic.ac.uk (K Dryllerakis) writes: > It is interesting that DOS 4.01 loads SHARE automatically in my >386 PC with a 40 MB hard disk. I believe that if SHARE.COM is in your root directory (C:\) and you have large media, DOS 4.01 will load SHARE automatically for you. If you don't have SHARE.COM in your root, DOS will just complain. If you have large media and don't load SHARE, you run the risk of having an ill-behaved application trash your hard disk. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) (12/17/90)
In article <59815@microsoft.UUCP>, steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes:
%% I believe that if SHARE.COM is in your root directory (C:\) and you have
%% large media, DOS 4.01 will load SHARE automatically for you. If you don't
%% have SHARE.COM in your root, DOS will just complain.
%%
%% If you have large media and don't load SHARE, you run the risk of having an
%% ill-behaved application trash your hard disk.
I have made some simple tests and get the conclusion that SHARE is looked
for in the place from which COMMAND.COM is loaded. If your SHELL variable
points to a non-root directory COMMAND.COM, SHARE won't be loaded if
it isn't in that directory, even if it is in the root. If you have no
SHELL variable, it will be loaded if it is in the root.
BTW: I there a method of disabling SHARE locks without rebooting?
--
Adam Mirowski, mir@chorus.fr (FRANCE), tel. +33 (1) 30-64-82-00 or 74
Chorus systemes, 6, av.Gustave Eiffel, 78182 Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines CEDEXtoma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (12/18/90)
In article <7253@chorus.fr> mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) writes: >In article <59815@microsoft.UUCP>, steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >%% If you have large media and don't load SHARE, you run the risk of having an >%% ill-behaved application trash your hard disk. [...] >I have made some simple tests and get the conclusion that SHARE is looked >for in the place from which COMMAND.COM is loaded. [...] You can rename SHARE to SHARE.FOO to keep it from loading. The following tiny TSR, NOSHARE.COM causes ill-behaved applications (those that attempt to open files using fcbs) to fail without trashing the hard disk. NOSHARE doesn't mess around with file sharing, so programs that refuse to run with share loaded will work. This program has been officially condemned by Microsoft, and if you use it you are using it at your own risk. SHARE is a mysterious program that Microsoft doesn't seem to want to share its insight about, so it might do more damage protection that I don't know about. section 1 of uuencode 3.16 of file noshare.com by R.E.M. begin 644 noshare.com MZ0@`]`$`````"@"\FA_'!@4!F!^]_A^)+@<!_.@Z`+@`3,TA`````(#\#W0*` M@/P6=`4N_RZ``+#_SUY86EL>CMNT)<TA'__FM#7-(8G8C,/#N@H`N``QS2'H> M2@`'3D]32$%21>A1`.@\``M">2!4;VT@06QM>>@_`+@A`.C)_Z,D`8D>)@&ZB M)`%2NH``4KH6`%+H40",R%"ZA`!2NB$`4NB7_^FK_UN*!S#D0U-0`<-86E.)= MT^DA`+@-`.@)`+@*`.D#``$``*+&`;1`N0$`NL8!BQ[$`<TAPXG!B=J+'L0!; 3M$#-(<-;65]>XP:,V([`\Z3_XZ3_F `` end sum -r/size 53542/375 section (from "begin" to "end") sum -r/size 4841/244 entire input file Tom Almy toma@sail.labs.tek.com <<< Note new address Standard Disclaimers Apply -- Tom Almy toma@sail.labs.tek.com <<< Note new address Standard Disclaimers Apply