Basschestra wrote to All <=-
Hello again!
So I installed Windows 3.1 on my virtualbox. I was browsing menus
and I found a Terminal. I started it up and dialbox appeared to
set new connection. Can anyone help? I don't know how to set it
up. Thanks!!!
Basschestra wrote to All <=-
Hello again!
So I installed Windows 3.1 on my virtualbox. I was browsing menus
and I found a Terminal. I started it up and dialbox appeared to
set new connection. Can anyone help? I don't know how to set it
up. Thanks!!!
Well, a 4-second google search found this:
http://ps-2.kev009.com/pcpartnerinfo/ctstips/a06a.htm
... So easy, a child could do it. Child sold separately.THANK YOU I NOW FIXED MY PROBLEm.
So I installed Windows 3.1 on my virtualbox. I was browsing menus and I found a Terminal. I started it up and dialbox appeared to set new connection. Can anyone help? I don't know how to set it up.
Thanks!!!
I'm wondering if it might be easier to do that with DOSBox. DOSBox can em a modem to be used over telnet, so you can use old communication programs elnet BBSes (you can say ATDT with an IP address or internet address to ha connect).
I'm wondering if it might be easier to do that with DOSBox. DOSBox can emulate a modem to be used over telnet, so you can use old communication programs with telnet BBSes (you can say ATDT with an IP address or internet address to have it connect). Windows 3.1 seems to run decently in DOSBox too.
I'm wondering if it might be easier to do that with DOSBox. DOSBox
can em a modem to be used over telnet, so you can use old
communication programs elnet BBSes (you can say ATDT with an IP
address or internet address to ha connect).
I've been meaning to give this a try with Telix. It'd be fun to give that a spin again!
I'm wondering if it might be easier to do that with DOSBox. DOSBox
can emulate a modem to be used over telnet, so you can use old
communication programs with telnet BBSes (you can say ATDT with an
IP address or internet address to have it connect). Windows 3.1
seems to run decently in DOSBox too.
There's a version of DOSBOX that emulates a NE2000 ethernet card, too. I have it working with packet drivers and am trying to get Windows for Workgroups 3.11 networking to work alongside it.
I've tried Telix in DOSBox (version 0.74.3). For some reason, Telix didn'
to be rendering ANSI properly in DOXBox for me. I've also tried Telemate ld favorite comm program), which seems to work better in DOSBox for me. I ard Telix has w
It was a really slow day for work (being Canada Day) so I took the plunge & installed DOSBox & downloaded Telix. It was a lot easier than I expected. I found a Reddit thread from a few years back that had the line to edit in the config. He also pointed out that going faster than 19,200 caused a lot of "line noise" which was certainly the case.
I've tried Telix in DOSBox (version 0.74.3). For some reason, Telix didn't seem to be rendering ANSI properly in DOXBox for me. I've also tried Telema (my old favorite comm program), which seems to work better in DOSBox for me. I've heard Telix has worked fine for others in DOSBox though. Maybe there's another build of DOSBox or some different DOSBox settings that might help wi Telix.
I've tried Telix in DOSBox (version 0.74.3). For some reason, Telix
didn't seem to be rendering ANSI properly in DOXBox for me. I've also
tried Telema (my old favorite comm program), which seems to work
better in DOSBox for me. I've heard Telix has worked fine for others
in DOSBox though. Maybe there's another build of DOSBox or some
different DOSBox settings that might help wi Telix.
did you try bbstermbox? works ok there.
in DOSBox though. Maybe there's another build of DOSBox or some
different DOSBox settings that might help wi Telix.
did you try bbstermbox? works ok there.
I haven't tried that. Maybe I should go find it and give it a try.
in DOSBox though. Maybe there's another build of DOSBox or some
different DOSBox settings that might help wi Telix.
did you try bbstermbox? works ok there.
I haven't tried that. Maybe I should go find it and give it a try.
http:// bbses.info / termbox /
On 01 Jul 2020, Nightfox said the following...
I'm wondering if it might be easier to do that with DOSBox. DOSBox
can em a modem to be used over telnet, so you can use old
communication programs elnet BBSes (you can say ATDT with an IP
address or internet address to ha connect).
I've been meaning to give this a try with Telix. It'd be fun to give that a spin again!
Jay
Well I didn't knew that dosbox can emulate modem.
Thanks. I will try that.
Well I didn't knew that dosbox can emulate modem.
Thanks. I will try that.
You'll have to ask where the software is first. And how to install it. And....
Well I didn't knew that dosbox can emulate modem.
Thanks. I will try that.
You'll have to ask where the software is first. And how to install
it. And....
All that information can be found online (with Google, or DuckDuckGo, or whatever your favorite search engine might be).
Nightfox
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Nightfox to paulie420 on Fri Jul 03 2020 09:25 am
Well I didn't knew that dosbox can emulate modem.
Thanks. I will try that.
You'll have to ask where the software is first. And how to install
it. And....
All that information can be found online (with Google, or DuckDuckGo, o whatever your favorite search engine might be).
Nightfox
You know the funny bit; I always try to like... search for keywords or exact
to answer... that works surprisingly well.
Like she'll just search 'Whats the best restaurant around me right now' or ' fact, sometimes her way of just asking does a better job at my... computer m
|08Paulie|15420
|15M|08@|15STERM|07i|15ND
|14AmericanPiBBS|04.com|07
Warpslide wrote to Nightfox <=-
A fun little nostalgia trip, glad I did it, but I'm happy w/ SyncTerm.
;)
You know the funny bit; I always try to like... search for keywords or exact quotes of an issue I'm having... but my girlfriend showed me, especially on Google but even on DuckDuckGo, that even just asking whatever the damn question is that you're trying to answer... that works surprisingly well.
Like she'll just search 'Whats the best restaurant around me right now' or 'top 10 live music venues in portland' or whatever... simply searching the normal conversation type question that you want answered & Goole/duck will do all the heavy listing. In fact, sometimes her way of just asking does a better job at my... computer minding it.
On 07-04-20 10:20, Moondog wrote to paulie420 <=-
Search engines have gone a long way. On the TV seres Halt and Catch
Fire they dramatized what the search engine designers were encountering regarding relevance of searches. A search for the Dallas Cowboys could either bring up the football franchise, or a small group of single
action pistol shooters based in Dallas.
Moondog wrote to paulie420 <=-
Search engines have gone a long way. On the TV seres Halt and Catch
Fire they dramatized what the search engine designers were encountering regarding relevance of searches. A search for the Dallas Cowboys could either bring up the football franchise, or a small group of single
action pistol shooters based in Dallas.
Moondog wrote to paulie420 <=-
Search engines have gone a long way. On the TV seres Halt and Catch Fire they dramatized what the search engine designers were encountering regarding relevance of searches. A search for the Dallas Cowboys could either bring up the football franchise, or a small group of single action pistol shooters based in Dallas.
I just finished the audiobook Into the Plex - it's about the
beginnings of Google, and goes into great detail about what made
Google beat out the Alta Vistas, Yahoos, and Excites of the day.
Definitely worth checking out.
whats the name of the audiobook
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Jul 05 2020 11:59 am
whats the name of the audiobook
"Into the Plex"
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Moondog on Sun Jul 05 2020 07:41 am
Moondog wrote to paulie420 <=-
Search engines have gone a long way. On the TV seres Halt and Catch Fire they dramatized what the search engine designers were encounter regarding relevance of searches. A search for the Dallas Cowboys co either bring up the football franchise, or a small group of single action pistol shooters based in Dallas.
I just finished the audiobook Into the Plex - it's about the
beginnings of Google, and goes into great detail about what made
Google beat out the Alta Vistas, Yahoos, and Excites of the day.
Definitely worth checking out.
whats the name of the audiobook
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Nightfox to MRO on Thu Jul 02 2020 08:53 am
in DOSBox though. Maybe there's another build of DOSBox or some
different DOSBox settings that might help wi Telix.
did you try bbstermbox? works ok there.
I haven't tried that. Maybe I should go find it and give it a try.
http:// bbses.info / termbox /
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Nightfox on Thu Jul 02 2020 02:17 pm
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Nightfox to MRO on Thu Jul 02 2020 08:53 am
in DOSBox though. Maybe there's another build of DOSBox or some
different DOSBox settings that might help wi Telix.
did you try bbstermbox? works ok there.
I haven't tried that. Maybe I should go find it and give it a try.
http:// bbses.info / termbox /
http://bbses.info/termbox/termbox.dosbox.installer.with.terminal.programs.ra r
RAR? Seriously?
But to whoever created this package: very cool. Thank you!
But once installed (on Windows 10), I don't get any new start menu options. The included readme.txt says "Select software from start menu". I'm not sure if that's referring to the Windows start menu, but there's nothing new there. I'll figure how to start the installed dosbox.exe with the included *.conf files manually, but this installer (or the doc?) needs some help, at least with Windows 10.
RAR? Seriously?
But to whoever created this package: very cool. Thank you!
But once installed (on Windows 10), I don't get any new start menu options. The included readme.txt says "Select software from start menu".
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to MRO on Sat Aug 01 2020 01:03 pm
RAR? Seriously?
yeah, seriously. .rar is a widely used archive format with many advantages.
But to whoever created this package: very cool. Thank you!
But once installed (on Windows 10), I don't get any new start menu options. The included readme.txt says "Select software from start menu".
https://i.imgur.com/ZWoWsyG.png
i'm on windows 10
RAR? Seriously?
yeah, seriously. .rar is a widely used archive format with many
advantages.
RAR is obscure and not nearly as widely supported as ZIP. When making an install package, I would try to make something either a self-extracting .exe or at-last archive as ZIP. You know, to make it easier for the average user to actually install.
But to whoever created this package: very cool. Thank you!
But once installed (on Windows 10), I don't get any new start menu
options. The included readme.txt says "Select software from start
menu".
https://i.imgur.com/ZWoWsyG.png
i'm on windows 10
Ah, indeed, there it is... under "DOS Terminal Software". For whatever reason it did not appear under "Newly Installed" (or whatever its called) and I had no idea it wouldn't be under "Termbox" or "DOSBox". Anyway, it's a way cool package. You make it?
RAR? Seriously?
yeah, seriously. .rar is a widely used archive format with many advantages.
rar is really used a lot. especially if you download movies and tv.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Digital Man on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:32 am
rar is really used a lot. especially if you download movies and tv.
I've download movies & TV shows with BitTorrent before, and none of it
has ever been RAR'ed.. It's usually just a video file, not in any
archive container.
Nightfox
---
= Synchronet = Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
RAR? Seriously?
yeah, seriously. .rar is a widely used archive format with many advantages.
Used by whom? RAR is a good format, but I rarely (no pun
intended) see RAR archives these days.
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Digital Man on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:32 am
rar is really used a lot. especially if you download movies and tv.
I've download movies & TV shows with BitTorrent before, and none of it has e been RAR'ed.. It's usually just a video file, not in any archive container.
Nightfox
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Digital Man on Sat Aug 01 2020 08:43 pm
RAR? Seriously?
yeah, seriously. .rar is a widely used archive format with many advantages.
Used by whom? RAR is a good format, but I rarely (no pun intended) see RAR archives these days. Several years ago I tried 7-zip, and it seems 7-zip might actually compress better than RAR. And it's free.
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Digital Man on Sat Aug 01 2020 08:43 pm
RAR? Seriously?
yeah, seriously. .rar is a widely used archive format with many
advantages.
Used by whom? RAR is a good format, but I rarely (no pun intended) see RAR archives these days. Several years ago I tried 7-zip, and it seems 7-zip might actually compress better than RAR. And it's free.
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Digital Man on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:32 am
rar is really used a lot. especially if you download movies and tv.
I've download movies & TV shows with BitTorrent before, and none of it has ever been RAR'ed.. It's usually just a video file, not in any archive
I have seen people who have put a large video file into a multipart RAR file, then RAR'ed the multipart RAR files into a single RAR file.
And i've seen that more than once.
Actually, some people try to compress movies and series within RAR files.
They are usually malware or password protected.
But the amount of additional compression available by more obscure compression schemes, be it 7zip or bzip2 or rar, is just rarely worth the extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to
extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
Used by whom? RAR is a good format, but I rarely (no pun intended)
see RAR archives these days. Several years ago I tried 7-zip, and it
seems 7-zip might actually compress better than RAR. And it's free.
But the amount of additional compression available by more obscure compression schemes, be it 7zip or bzip2 or rar, is just rarely worth the extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
i like the syntax and the features of rar
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:09 am
Used by whom? RAR is a good format, but I rarely (no pun intended)
see RAR archives these days. Several years ago I tried 7-zip, and it
seems 7-zip might actually compress better than RAR. And it's free.
But the amount of additional compression available by more obscure compression schemes, be it 7zip or bzip2 or rar, is just rarely worth the extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
I like to make things easy for people when I'm sharing things too.
I've seen 7-zip and RAR often enough though that I'm not sure I'd consider them very obscure. And at the last place I worked at, there was an internal web site where they'd share drivers & software tools, and I started seeing a lot of things there archived with 7-zip.
i love rar. i even paid for it.
7zip compresses what better than rar? what format?
have you tested with their current specs?
I like to make things easy for people when I'm sharing things too.
I've seen 7-zip and RAR often enough though that I'm not sure I'd
consider them very obscure. And at the last place I worked at, there
was an internal web site where they'd share drivers & software tools,
and I started seeing a lot of things there archived with 7-zip.
If the place you worked at pre-installed 7-zip on every corporate Windows computer, then I suppose that wouldn't be terrible. But I've never worked anywhere that pre-installed 7-zip on their Windows systems.
I have seen people who have put a large video file into a multipart
RAR file, then RAR'ed the multipart RAR files into a single RAR
file.
And i've seen that more than once.
they do that with software. and it's usually multi zip and multi rar.
i think that's stupid.
extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
Underminer wrote to Digital Man <=-
extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
I disagree and think we should all start using ARJ again ;)
I like to make things easy for people when I'm sharing things too.
I've seen 7-zip and RAR often enough though that I'm not sure I'd consider them very obscure. And at the last place I worked at, there was an internal web site where they'd share drivers & software tools, and I started seeing a lot of things there archived with 7-zip.
work laptop) don't have it and don't need it.
I just think for a publicly-distributed installer, the most important feature of the archive format used (if one is used at all), is that it's highly-available. And there's nothing more highly-available than a ZIP extractor for Windows: it's built-in.
If I have to find/install some special extractor for your install package, that's just one extra step and an unnecessary hassle. One that I'm certainly capable of overcoming, but with this particular install package (Termbox), I was thinking of the general user who might be easily dissuade by that hassle.
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:20 pm
i love rar. i even paid for it.
Which RAR program? I paid for WinRAR, but I'm not sure if that covers other RAR programs for other operating systems etc..
have you tested with their current specs?
Specs for RAR & 7-zip? And I'm not sure what you mean by "specs" here.
they do that with software. and it's usually multi zip and multi
rar. i think that's stupid.
I've seen that done with software too. I don't know why people do that.
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:09 am
extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I
try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares
about the few extra kilobytes these days.
I disagree and think we should all start using ARJ again ;)
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:09 am
extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
I disagree and think we should all start using ARJ again ;)
the windows interface for 7zip seems real ugly though.
there's a lot of features for the .rar archiver, you should check it out.
they do that with software. and it's usually multi zip and multi
rar. i think that's stupid.
i call it the pandora's box. it is some standard but i cant find where they write about it. maybe they are traying to hide the keygens from av software
I disagree and think we should all start using ARJ again ;)
PKARC for the win! ;-)
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to MRO on Sun Aug 02 2020 11:13 am
work laptop) don't have it and don't need it.
I just think for a publicly-distributed installer, the most important feature of the archive format used (if one is used at all), is that it's highly-available. And there's nothing more highly-available than a ZIP extractor for Windows: it's built-in.
If I have to find/install some special extractor for your install package, that's just one extra step and an unnecessary hassle. One that I'm certainly capable of overcoming, but with this particular install package (Termbox), I was thinking of the general user who might be easily dissuade by that hassle.
the official disto for termbox is a self extracting installer. i'm not distributing it other than linking it a few times.
you should get rar and check it out. you might like it.
People at my last workplace used to password-protect zip files when sending attachment so the company's email scanner wouldn't strip out what it saw as potentially dangerous files (such as script files, etc.).
How about .tar.gz?
People at my last workplace used to password-protect zip files when
sending attachment so the company's email scanner wouldn't strip out
what it saw as potentially dangerous files (such as script files,
etc.).
I think that only works if you double-zip though as you can still view the manifest of a password-protected zip file.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Dennisk to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:00 pm
I have seen people who have put a large video file into a multipart RAR file, then RAR'ed the multipart RAR files into a single RAR file.
And i've seen that more than once.
they do that with software. and it's usually multi zip and multi rar.
i think that's stupid.
usually the scene does rar parts to make distribution easier and to
make it easy to fix mistakes.
rar is a very feature rich archiver and i suggest everyone check it out
if they havent. i use it for backups. ---
Nightfox wrote to Digital Man <=-
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:09 am
Used by whom? RAR is a good format, but I rarely (no pun intended)
see RAR archives these days. Several years ago I tried 7-zip, and it
seems 7-zip might actually compress better than RAR. And it's free.
But the amount of additional compression available by more obscure compression schemes, be it 7zip or bzip2 or rar, is just rarely worth the extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
I like to make things easy for people when I'm sharing things too.
I've seen 7-zip and RAR often enough though that I'm not sure I'd
consider them very obscure. And at the last place I worked at, there
was an internal web site where they'd share drivers & software tools,
and I started seeing a lot of things there archived with 7-zip.
Nightfox
Underminer wrote to Digital Man <=-
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:09 am
extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
I disagree and think we should all start using ARJ again ;)
On 08-02-20 19:45, Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
PKARC for the win! ;-)
How about .tar.gz?
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Dennisk to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:00 pm
I have seen people who have put a large video file into a multipart RAR file, then RAR'ed the multipart RAR files into a single RAR file.
And i've seen that more than once.
they do that with software. and it's usually multi zip and multi rar. i think that's stupid.
usually the scene does rar parts to make distribution easier and to make it easy to fix mistakes.
rar is a very feature rich archiver and i suggest everyone check it out if they havent. i use it for backups. ---
I have tried out RAR, and it is nice. The ability to add parity information quite good, but that can be done by something like Parchiver.
I use DAR, the Disk ARchiver for backups, as I need something which stored POSIX file attributes. Otherwise, it is ZIP because most people would be confused if they received anything else. For my own archiving I would use 7zip, or TAR with LZip.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
The problem is that Windows natively handles ZIP, so people may be used to not needing a decompressor program to extract an archive. In the 90s, it was a given that you needed an addon program, and what is one more for a different archive type? Anyone extracting a ZIP would be cluey enough to also extract an ARJ or LZH archive.
I'd like to use 7Zip, but some people may find it strange needing to install ANYTHING to use it, and that it would most likely be me having to walk them through how to install it and use it.
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:31 am
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Digital Man on Sat Aug 01 2020 08:43 pm
RAR? Seriously?
yeah, seriously. .rar is a widely used archive format with many advantages.
Used by whom? RAR is a good format, but I rarely (no pun intended) see R archives these days. Several years ago I tried 7-zip, and it seems 7-zip might actually compress better than RAR. And it's free.
But the amount of additional compression available by more obscure compressi ble - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
digital man
This Is Spinal Tap quote #30:
Big bottom, big bottom / Talk about mud flaps, my girl's got 'em!
Norco, CA WX: 84.6øF, 47.0% humidity, 1 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 03 2020 10:12 am
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Dennisk to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:00 pm
I have seen people who have put a large video file into a multipart RAR file, then RAR'ed the multipart RAR files into a single RAR file.
And i've seen that more than once.
they do that with software. and it's usually multi zip and multi rar. i think that's stupid.
usually the scene does rar parts to make distribution easier and to make it easy to fix mistakes.
rar is a very feature rich archiver and i suggest everyone check it out if they havent. i use it for backups. ---
I have tried out RAR, and it is nice. The ability to add parity information quite good, but that can be done by something like Parchiver.
I use DAR, the Disk ARchiver for backups, as I need something which stored POSIX file attributes. Otherwise, it is ZIP because most people would be confused if they received anything else. For my own archiving I would use 7zip, or TAR with LZip.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
DAR is quite handy. I remember using some custom scripts and magic to simulate tha a CD drive was a tape and make Tar output a continuous
tape. It would fill a CD, open the tray and ask for a new blank CD,
then keep writing on the "tape". Good fun.
Nowadays most people I work with supports 7z, so that is what I use
when sneding files away. For archival I use tar+lrzip. tar+gz and zip
are used for public sharing only here.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
I disagree and think we should all start using ARJ again ;)
PKARC for the win! ;-)
How about .tar.gz?
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Underminer to Digital Man on Sun Aug 02 2020 01:54 pm
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 10:09 am
extra hassle. If it's a public archive (e.g. an install package), I try to go as easy and as main stream as possible - nobody cares about the few extra kilobytes these days.
I disagree and think we should all start using ARJ again ;)
Or PKPAK!
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: MRO to Nightfox on Sun Aug 02 2020 08:50 pm
the windows interface for 7zip seems real ugly though.
I don't mind it much. It seems to work fairly well, and it's free.
there's a lot of features for the .rar archiver, you should check it
out.
I used to use WinRAR quite a bit, but not as much these days. I seem to remember features like you said for error correction, though I remember there being separate tools for that too.. SmartPAR and such, that could analyze a set of files and if have the PAR data, it could recover the files if they were damaged under a certain amount.
i call it the pandora's box. it is some standard but i cant find
where they write about it. maybe they are traying to hide the
keygens from av software
I'd think that could be done by password-protecting the archive (which I've also seen done).
People at my last workplace used to password-protect zip files when sending attachment so the company's email scanner wouldn't strip out what it saw as potentially dangerous files (such as script files, etc.).
the official disto for termbox is a self extracting installer. i'm not
distributing it other than linking it a few times.
Oh, cool. Where's the official distro located (got a link)?
Like I said, I have/use unrar, when needed. And I've installed WinRAR on systems in the past, but never really took to it. I remember when RAR first came out, it's not new to me.
I use DAR, the Disk ARchiver for backups, as I need something which stored POSIX file attributes. Otherwise, it is ZIP because most people would be confused if they received anything else. For my own archiving I would use 7zip, or TAR with LZi
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to MRO on Sun Aug 02 2020 08:23 pm
the official disto for termbox is a self extracting installer. i'm not
distributing it other than linking it a few times.
Oh, cool. Where's the official distro located (got a link)?
no clue, you can try googling it.
Like I said, I have/use unrar, when needed. And I've installed WinRAR on systems in the past, but never really took to it. I remember when RAR first came out, it's not new to me.
you should try using it. unrar isnt the same.
Oh, cool. Where's the official distro located (got a link)?
no clue, you can try googling it.
I did with no luck.
Like I said, I have/use unrar, when needed. And I've installed
WinRAR on systems in the past, but never really took to it. I
remember when RAR first came out, it's not new to me.
Re: Re: Windows 3.1 Terminal
By: Digital Man to MRO on Tue Aug 04 2020 05:28 pm
Oh, cool. Where's the official distro located (got a link)?
no clue, you can try googling it.
I did with no luck.
oh, his website used to come up. the sfx installer is the last version
Like I said, I have/use unrar, when needed. And I've installed
WinRAR on systems in the past, but never really took to it. I
remember when RAR first came out, it's not new to me.
oh, unrar isnt really like winrar though. winrar / rar is more feature rich. unrar is just a free program to extract .rar archives
oh, his website used to come up. the sfx installer is the last version
So he made the termbox.exe and you added the readme.txt?
oh, unrar isnt really like winrar though. winrar / rar is more feature rich. unrar is just a free program to extract .rar archives
Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
---|---|
Location: | Prospect, CT |
Users: | 324 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 126:03:39 |
Calls: | 499 |
Messages: | 218408 |