Open source aefdisk on github

[Drugwash]

I was just replying to a metapad-related topic. Latest version is 3.6 and it still works fine in Win9x so I wonder why you wouldn't use that version in hope that any possible bugs that sent you to a wild goose chase have already been squashed. There's also the possiblity that in 98 you have word wrap enabled while in XP not, so depending on window size in 98 you may get different results. In my Metapad 3.6 under 98SE I see a total of 5526 lines in the statusbar.

 

Personally I'm extremely reluctant to mess with my nine years old 98SE system by installing an older TASM. I have so many sistem files upgraded to WinME/2000/XP/+ versions that a badly built installer that doesn't take version number and modification date into account could very well screw up the entire system. I'm not taking that chance, no way. If the thing came in a humanly-usable archive type that could be manually unpacked and deployed, then maybe - just maybe - I would've given it a shot. But the way it looks - no.

 

Anyway, when launching the batch file created as mentioned above, I see Turbo Assembler Version 4.1 with 3 warnings and 2 errors at lines 2743, 2919, 2921 and then Turbo Link Version 7.1.30.1 that can't open the object file (obviously due to preceding errors). The errors could be fixed according to shae's advices but I didn't go there.

 

I also have a network printer recently purchased second-hand (Lexmark E352dn) and it works just fine in both 98SE and XP-SP3 with the appropriate drivers installed. There is at least a topic here where you can find very useful tips on installing network printers under 9x (I know it requires certain driver from HP to enable network printing under 9x and then a very good tip is to name the printer from its own settings something like LPT2…9). I've named it LPT4 (since LPT1-LPT3 were in use) and added its fixed IP (don't use dynamic IP with it, it may not work correctly) to the hosts files in both XP and 98SE.

 

 

EDIT:

 

@ shae: I've just performed the modifications you mentioned and compiled succesfully. The resulted file is bit-by-bit identical with yours. Apparently we are using the very same TASM installation.

Unfortunately I don't have a testing system so functionality is still questionable.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Drugwash

[osRe]

Comparing files C:\TC\His\AEFDISK.EXE and C:\TC\My9\AEFDISK.EXE

0000001F: 71 50

I don't think this makes a critical difference at all. This is with TASM 4.1 and TLINK 5.1.

I don't think this part is used by DOS. In this specific case it's supposed to be TLINK's version. v7.1 in my case, and apparently your v5.1 writes 0x50.

MZ header details:

http://www.fileformat.info/format/exe/corion-mz.htm

The resulted file is bit-by-bit identical with yours. Apparently we are using the very same TASM installation.

Not necessarily.

[Drugwash]

TSM_RDME.TXT (5334 bytes dated 1996.02.21) in main installation folder says "Welcome to Borland Turbo Assembler and Tools 5.0".

TSM_INST.TXT also has 5.0 all over it.

Coincidence happens.

[osRe]

Yeah, appears to be the same. Not that it's that crucial.

TASM.EXE   136,018  02-21-1996 5:00a  97eb0007  v4.1

TLINK.EXE 120,426 02-21-1996 5:00a aaa7a0f4 v7.1.30.1

[Drugwash]

Of course it's not crucial. But it is a good way to cross-check operations and their results if ever needed.

Both my files match yours in size and date. Dunno how to get/calculate the CRC for this type of files. I'm pretty sure they'll match too, though.

[jaclaz]

Of course it's not crucial. But it is a good way to cross-check operations and their results if ever needed.

Both my files match yours in size and date. Dunno how to get/calculate the CRC for this type of files. I'm pretty sure they'll match too, though.

JFYI, 7-zip has a built-in feature to calculate a number of common hashes, including CRC32.

 

jaclaz

[Drugwash]

Great, thanks, I didn't know that! Actually I'm mostly using the TotCmd 7-zip plug-in for packing/unpacking so didn't get a chance to become familiar with the official standalone 7-zip's features. I just hope I won't forget this (too soon).

 

And now that I found the method I'll confirm both CRCs match the above so we can put this non-issue to rest.

[osRe]

There's an endless choice of checksumming programs. Sadly, none of them gets remotely close to offering all the features I'm after or doing everything (or even most things) right.

For single files I'm using HashCalc. The GUI is a bit crude, it's not the fastest, but for a file here and there it's okay.

For DOS I'm using McAfee's VALIDATE.EXE. It's all manual, no reading/writing of SFVs or similar, only CRC, but for my limited DOS uses it suffices. Note that the results it shows are the inverse of the common CRC32 used in pretty much everything else.

Edited August 3, 2015 by shae

[Drugwash]

I can create/check SFV and MD5 from within Total Commander but not other checksum types. Never needed any, actually. This time I was just curious.

I could actually create/read/compare/update an executable/library's built-in CRC, it's partly implemented in one of my tools (DllDetails). But this is a different thing.