Doug:
The earliest MSC I have is 7.0 which has the 3.1 SDK on it (separate
disk and separate install program).
Rich
==========================
Richard A. Cini, Jr.
Congress Financial Corporation
1133 Avenue of the Americas
30th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(212) 545-4402
(212) 840-6259 (facsimile)
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Quebbeman [mailto:dhquebbeman@theestopinalgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:13 PM
To: 'classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org'
Subject: RE: SDK for Windows 1.04??
> Hello, all:
>
> I was paging through some Sourcer listings that I have of the
> Windows 1.04 code and noticed that most of the functions in the DOS Shell
> code (MSDOS.exe and MSDOSD.exe) are referenced by ordinal number and not
> function name ("MSDOS_23" versus "DoSomeThing"). So, I was wondering if
> anyone had a copy or knows the existence of SDK documentation for Windows
1.
I think the Windows 1 SDK was bundled with some versions of the
Microsoft C Compiler v 4.0.... or I guess, it would have been
the compiler bundled with the SDK.
In the late 80s, lots of people were buying the SDKs and then stripping
out the compiler packages and selling them. I bought MS C 5.0 that way
>from someone who'd bought a Microsoft OS/2 SDK. I was able to send a
copy of a letter from the seller to Microsoft, who registered me as
a valid licensee! However, they stopped that practice shortly there-
after.
Regards,
-dq
At 07:32 PM 6/21/01 -0700, Fred wrote:
>
>For years I have used noise-cancellation headphones at COMDEX.
>The slowness of the speed of sound limits the practicality of the
>technology to situations where you can have the added signal provided to
>the receiver (your ear) at the same place as the original sound (in the
>headphones). If you tried to produce a unit to silence the neighborhood,
>alas, the delay of the sound reaching the mike, added to the delay of the
>"anti-sound" getting back to the original source, would render it
>impossible to synch up adequately. Even if the mike were at the source,
>eliminating THAT delay, people at different locations would experience
>different phase combinations of the two signals. In fact, at 500
>feet away there would be almost a half a second of delay. Since you want
>either no time delta between the signals (if inverted), enough distance to
>give half the frequency of the sound would completely bollix it.
>
>In other words, you could diminish the sound for yourself, but not cancel
>out the noise level even a few feet away.
Yes, this is inhererent in every 1-dimensional, single driver approach to
sound cancellation. In the end, if you want to null out a source
for everyone, you need to surround it with drivers. Not practical.
But, with two drivers strategically placed apart, you can cancel
the source along one direction. Oh, and you need more than one
mike along every direction for the same reasons.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
we fired up an old Rover (Buick) V8 a while ago on someone's driveway with
no exhaust manifolds on it - that really was pretty darn loud. Windows
rattled, and the people 4 doors down the street though a plane was crashing
on their heads :-)
the flames are pretty good, nice blue / orange jets out of the ports in the
heads. Cooked the engine bay pretty well though...
> ----------
> From: Mike Ford[SMTP:mikeford@socal.rr.com]
> Sent: 22 June 2001 09:23
> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Boom cars (ot for sure...)
>
> >> common occurance that when I start my engine when parked next to an
> >> alarmed car, the alarm goes off. :-)
> >
> >
> >Yeh, those 3/4-race cams and headers have this tendancy to do that . . .
>
> One of my brothers old buddies had his exhaust rigged with a pair of 3"
> electric aircraft fuel valves. Switch up on the dash ran the exhaust thru
> a
> Caddie quiet set of mufflers, down and it went out about a foot behind
> the
> front wheels with no restriction of any kind. Not only rather loud, but
> shot flame a fair distance.
>
>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:12:06 -0700 Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com>
writes:
> This is a True Story(tm) although it sounds like an urban legend
<Tale of Cellular Mayhem SNIPped>
Yeh, I seen that done. I work for a test equipment manufacturer,
and you can get a cellular test set to fake-out phones pretty
easily (if you have $20k to spend on a test set).
A retired cellular tranceiver (one designed to deliver a control
channel) is a good substitute.
OB Classic: If those tranceivers were the ones I'm familiar
with, they are controlled by a 6809 uP. They're
long, thin, heavy aluminum things with a handle and
audio jacks in the front . . . .
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Gee, I'm so embarrassed asking this in public, but heck, I played
so little games in my life! Can someone tell me how to get over
those pits once you come down the hill with Quest for Tires? I
recently got an old C64 setup (I grew up with one) and thought
this was a fun game, I just don't see any way to get over those
pits.
Thanks,
-Gunther
No this is not off topic, becasue I just had that thought that
one should rename Lunix/LNG to "True64". After all, Tru64
isn't truly on the C64. The but the C64 has a Unix, so it should
be called True64.
cheers,
-Gunther
--
Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D. gschadow(a)regenstrief.org
Medical Information Scientist Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
Adjunct Assistant Professor Indiana University School of Medicine
tel:1(317)630-7960 http://aurora.regenstrief.org
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, George Currie wrote:
> Two different concepts. The DOS tech refs are refering to the values
> to place in ah (I think, or was it al?) before making a DOS or BIOS
> int call. This is all pre-DLL days. Richard is referring to the
> ordinal number within a DLL to reference a specific function located
> in the DLL.
He is referring to the number reported by his disassembler that is
disassembling the Windoze program (into DOS compatible assembly language).
The value placed in AH IS for the purpose of referencing a specific
dunction located in the MS-DOS DOS function handler (INT 21h).
> Not all functions in a dll have their names exported and
> sometimes the only way to get to them is by ordinal number. This is
> one way that M$ creates 'value added' to their software by utilizing
> these undocumented calls.
And there were/are a few undocumented functions in MS-DOS, such as #34h,
and INT 28. And don't forget the "network redirector" (since 3.10) that
is needed even to use MS's CDROM drivers.
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
PO Box 1236 (510) 558-9366
Berkeley, CA 94701-1236
Hello, all:
I was paging through some Sourcer listings that I have of the
Windows 1.04 code and noticed that most of the functions in the DOS Shell
code (MSDOS.exe and MSDOSD.exe) are referenced by ordinal number and not
function name ("MSDOS_23" versus "DoSomeThing"). So, I was wondering if
anyone had a copy or knows the existence of SDK documentation for Windows 1.
Rich
==========================
Richard A. Cini, Jr.
Congress Financial Corporation
1133 Avenue of the Americas
30th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(212) 545-4402
(212) 840-6259 (facsimile)
George,
I don't think Windows 1.04 had DLLs! It ran in real mode and used
simple .EXE files as programs and nothing else.
Edwin
At 03:26 PM 6/21/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Two different concepts. The DOS tech refs are refering to the values to
place in ah (I think, or was it al?) before making a DOS or BIOS int call.
This is all pre-DLL days. Richard is referring to
>the ordinal number within a DLL to reference a specific function located
in the DLL. Not all functions in a dll have their names exported and
sometimes the only way to get to them is by ordinal
>number. This is one way that M$ creates 'value added' to their software
by utilizing these undocumented calls.
>
>George
>
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:42:53 -0400, John Allain wrote:
>
>>From: Cini, Richard <RCini(a)congressfinancial.com>
>>
>>> most of the functions in the DOS Shell code (MSDOS.exe
>>> and MSDOSD.exe) are referenced by ordinal number
>>
>>Early (most?) DOS techinical reference
>>manuals listed function calls by numbers,
>>E.G. 10H = Close file. 01H = Keyboard input, etc.
>>Could this be it?
>>
>>John A.
A local (to D/FW) used place has some SGI Indy systems (with
monitor, keyboard, and mouse) for sale. Is there any interest
in these? They're asking $150 each. I don't know if that's
a good deal or not, and I don't know if they'll ship, but
if you're interested let me know and I'll email you the phone
number.
I'm not going to buy these and try to auction them. I don't
know what they are worth, I don't collect them, and I don't
want to buy them and try to ship them. I'll let you deal
with them yourself. If they won't ship, but you REALLY need
one, I may be convinced to help you. The box itself wouldn't
be hard to ship, but I hate shipping large monitors.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
