On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:22:43 +1000, Paul Quinn -> BjAPrn Felten   
   <3:640/1384> wrote:   
      
   You do realize that to contrast XP to 95/98/ME is like comparing the   
   moon to the sun.   
      
   The later was shunted onto DOS, the former merely emulated DOS.   
      
   However, you are familiar with cmd files are you not?   
      
      
      
    PQ> Hi! BjAPrn,   
      
    PQ> On 22/08/2015 6:35 AM, you wrote:   
      
    BF>>     Have you considered using Win XP or similar in a virtual box? Works   
    BF>> like clockwork here...   
      
    PQ> Yes, and discounted the notion almost immediately.  For a number of   
    PQ> reasons, I deemed XP as inappropriate as a 'next evolution'.   
      
    PQ> I run two different copies of XP in VMs already, only one of which has   
    PQ> my limited trust to run _a_ BATch file.  The batch had to be dumbed-down   
    PQ> for it to run in XP, and only in that XP.  It does not execute reliably   
    PQ> in the other XP, if at all.   
      
    PQ> Since my current main node relies heavily on batches, I would *not*   
    PQ> consider XP as a Good Thing(tm) for it.  Did you try that 'for example'   
    PQ> FREQ responder batch thingy I sent you?   
      
    PQ> The next evolution will be based on my linux VM (~640/1384).   
      
    PQ> Cheers,   
    PQ> Paul.   
      
    PQ> --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Th   
   nderbird/31.7.0   
    PQ>  * Origin: Paul's other Linux vBox - Maryborough, Qld, OZ (3:640/1384)   
   --    
   If you chase two rabbits, you will lose both of them.   
      
   --- ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272   
    * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)