Hello,   
      
   On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:05:38 +1000, Paul Quinn -> Nicholas Boel wrote:   
      
    PQ> Firstly, there is /nil/ support in vBox for anything Win9x.  T'ain't no   
    PQ> "Guest Additions" and no working OOTB Windows SVGA driver, so, the SVGA   
    PQ> driver had been written by a third party to fill the gap.  The vBox   
    PQ> people say it is all exceedingly very bloody difficult and don't even   
    PQ> recommend installing Win9x in vBox.  Hence, no support.   
      
   Is there some kind of issue stopping you from using a newer version of   
   Windows? Or even scrapping Windows altogether and using a Linux GUI to host   
   your Vbox sessions? That said, using a Linux GUI to host may even allow for no   
   need for Vbox at all..?   
      
    PQ> OTOH, wouldn't you want to use a multi-tasking GUI OS that only uses   
    PQ> 128Mb RAM (maybe just 64Mb but I didn't want to be overly stingy)?   
    PQ> Especially if such can give renewed life to 20+ years-old accumulated   
    PQ> utilities & custom scripts.  :)   
      
   Me personally? No. I don't use anything 20+ years old here as I have no need   
   for it. All of my hardware is much newer than that, and can handle just about   
   anything I throw at it. I use the free version of VMWare ESXi on my server   
   machine, which runs 3-4 Archlinux 64-bit instances that powers all of my   
   BBS/FTN operations, as well as a media center.   
      
    PQ> The alternate (vBox) SVGA driver-supported system.  (Entirely different   
    PQ> driver, BTW.)  It's been running happily as a Win98se system for quite a   
    PQ> few years, so long as I throw Windows *only* apps at it.  Any attempted   
    PQ> windowed/full-screen DOS sessions lock it up.  It still runs so long as   
    PQ> I'm careful.   
      
   Sounds like you have still have some hair pulling operations needing some   
   sorting out over there. ;)   
      
    PQ> There's another 32-bit Linux tosser?  Where?  What?  Hunh?  Pray tell,   
    PQ> as I have not heard of one other than HPT.   
      
   Crashmail II I guess, but I believe you've already tried that. HPT is   
   obviously the main choice up to now.   
      
   Sounds like there may be an option in the (whoknowswhen) future as far as   
   D'Bridge goes. But that may end up somewhere in the same realm as FMail as far   
   as stuck DOS related things going on there. But who knows, I would be   
   inclinded to give it a test-go.   
      
    PQ> Mystic fitted nicely into my hardware & software constraints.  I am very   
    PQ> pleased with it.  I haven't been this happy for nearly a decade.  Can't   
    PQ> you tell from my smile?  :)   
      
   I run a separate Mystic system here not available to the public for testing   
   purposes as well. I have for quite some time. Quite a bit of the early   
   FTN/BinkP integration was by my request and whatever assistance I could give   
   in testing.   
      
    PQ> I don't do DOS any more.  Just simple procedural bash-ing.   
      
   That's a good thing. ;)   
      
   Regards,   
   Nick   
      
   --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60   
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (1:154/10)