Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA22285 for <executor@nacm.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 1995 14:01:40 -0700
From: JohnTClark@aol.com
Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com
(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA149642099; Sat, 15 Jul 1995 17:01:39 -0400
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 17:01:39 -0400
Message-Id: <950715170137_33449094@aol.com>
To: executor@nacm.com
Subject: Big problems w/ 1.99n5 under Win/95
Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com
Precedence: bulk
For some reason my installation of 1.99n5 from the Bleeding Edge over 1.99n
seems to have totally died now under Windows 95 June Test Release. Before
that though there were problems that mystify me as well. Using 1.99n I could
run executor if it was the very first thing I did after booting into Windows
95 and could only run it once. After that trying to run executor again
causes the message "Executor has run out of memory try using a small
-applzone" which seems odd.
I am doing this on an AT&T Globalyst 200 notebook (aka Samsumg Sens 700 w/
486DX2 CPU & 12 MB RAM, WD90C24 video chipset etc) and never had any trouble
at all RUNNING any version of executor from 1.1 on except now I no longer
have DOS. My Win95 install demanded the primary dos partition and foolishly
I let it have it. If memory servers this is build 490 of Win95 (typing ver
/r at a DOS prompt gives: Windows 95 4.00.490 anyway) and I have noticed
that trying to run cwsdpmi on its own says "Protected mode not available" and
then produces a General Protection Fault of sorts.
That at any rate is what it used to do. Now it is worse. I either get an
abort with EIP tracebacks - a representative example is below - using either
1.99n or 1.99n5 with applzone 1024 (the only setting which seems not to
immediately provoke the out of memory fail code) 1.99n or 1.99n5; or if I add
-nosplash, an endless stream of the same messages saying "Make sure
$MACDIR/.Rsrc/System is readable and writable and that it has 512 bytes added
to the beginning of it".
Performing Control-Break to cut of this redundant fail code produces this