From: "Ed Durrant" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Received: from mxout2.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.166] verified)
by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9)
with ESMTP id 434212 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:59:47 -0400
Received: from mxin1.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.175])
by mxout2.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51)
id 1GZMRl-0002qO-N3
for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:59:46 -0400
Received: from omta02sl.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.93.154])
by mxin1.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51)
id 1GZMRl-000JIP-Cy
for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:59:37 -0400
Received: from [192.168.30.2] (really [147.10.172.143])
by omta02sl.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP
id <20061016065929.RMFR14640.omta02sl.mx.bigpond.com@[192.168.30.2]>
for <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>;
Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:59:29 +0000
Message-ID: <45332DCA.9010108@bigpond.net.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:59:22 +1000
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (OS/2/20060727)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Subject: Re: 1802 patch.
References: <list-433767@2rosenthals.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-433767@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta02sl.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.172.143] using ID edurrant@bigpond.net.au at Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:59:29 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
Kris Steenhaut wrote:
> Ed Durrant ha scritto:
>>>
>>> http://www.taartenbakkerij.eu/bestanden/no_1802.zip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The file you have IS different - it's a COM program
> That is what it should be.
>
>> while what I downloaded is a much larger EXE program
> Then I rather would like to put it under suspiscion.
>> if you want to put it on your website as an alternative to the one you
>> have.
>>
> No, as I'm sure mine is the good one. Actually, I had one the source
> code, and it is just about 8 or 10 lines IIRC. So, there is no good
> reason why it should have been compiled to a much larger *exe file.
>
>
>
I agree the amount of code being changed in the BIOS is so small, so why
such a big EXE ? Heck I don't care it fixes the BIOS as I wanted so
that's that.
It sounds like the much smaller COM file you have has also worked for
you - so that's fine as well.
QED: both probably work - but both require NO MINI-PCI card to be
installed when the patch is made, which may be why it didn't work for
whoever it was posted her (sorry - the name got truncated out a few
replies ago) !
Cheers/2
Ed.