[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: debug
- To: Mailing List Recipients <pci-sig-request@znyx.com>
- Subject: RE: debug
- From: "Schneider, Dave" <Dave.Schneider@emulex.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:26:33 -0700
- Delivered-To: pcisig@teleport.COM
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <199904150118.SAA01055@utopia.West.Sun.COM>
- Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:23:54 -0700
- Resent-From: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"XZN_S3.0.5q1.Nqv5t"@electra.znyx.com>
- Resent-Sender: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
> From: Dan Mick [mailto:dan.mick@West.Sun.COM]
>> From ????
> > > Well, what does "Windows NT box" mean?
> > >
> > > If it runs Windows NT, it must run DOS, and if he wants to poke
> My point was that, unless the original question said "and it
> has to be NT", simply saying "NT box" is no proof that it matters.
Warning -- Not all NT boxes are physically capable of running DOS. I often work with NT on boxes with Alpha processors; the "DOS window" is not actually DOS running in a window, but a command processor with a DOS-like appearance. There are still other boxes available where the processor is a MIPS or PowerPC processor (even if not supported by W2000), and I doubt that DOS solutions would work on these.
> ruling out the DOS solution is uncalled for.
Technically still correct, since the original request did not specify that one of these RISC hosts was involved, but there are other reasons why a true NT solution may be needed; (okay, since the original request seemed to be development-related, this one is a long shot: ) the machine where the solution is needed may not be available for shutdown-and-boot-a-different-OS -- 24x7 considerations, for instance.
Dave New was correct that providing only a DOS solution was not a totally adequate response to the original question.
Dave Schneider
Emulex Corp.
/dps
David
- References:
- RE: debug
- From: Dan Mick <dan.mick@West.Sun.COM>