[Coco] Re: Re: Shell + 2.2a

[Ray Watts]

Sorry, Charlie.  If you are using Shell+2.2a right out of the LZH, 
please disregard everything I said after hi ~;=)>.  Your problem sounded 
so familiar to some I had that I just sounded off.  Good luck!


Charlie wrote:

> Please excuse my ignorance :) So, I'm loading too many thing into 
> memory  and Shell+2.2a being bigger is using too much ram along with 
> everything  else loaded ?
>
> I don't know enough to understand what merging things with Shell+2.1 
> has  to do with using Shell2.2a right out of the LZH file.
>
> Is it something in my Startup file that does the merging when the 
> system  boots? I'll look at that when I get home.
>
> I know I'm going to be a big pain with 10000 questions, however, it's  
> almost as if I'm feeling "YAY, something doesn't work! Now I can 
> figure  out why and learn a bunch of things."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:21:16 -0700, Ray Watts  
> <rayanddoraleew at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> You may not have the problem I described if you don't remember 
>> merging  some commands with your Shell.  In the old days it was 
>> common to merge  enough commands with the shell to almost reach the 
>> 1024X8-512 limit.   This allowed you to have these commands in memory 
>> without using up any  additional DAT blocks.  Shell+ 2.2a is a larger 
>> file than Shell+2.1, so  if you had a merged block and replaced 2.1 
>> with 2.2a, you would go over  that limit, which, I believe caused a 
>> problem like you described.  Hey,  someone.  Correct this foggy old 
>> mind if I'm wrong.
>>
>> Charlie wrote:
>>
>>> What can I do to fix the problem? What files were merged? I know 
>>> most  of  my OS9 system was put together many years ago, and I 
>>> remember  replacing  many commands with ones from delphi.
>>>
>>> I don't know very much about OS9 but I would love to understand it  
>>> better.  Not to mention get everything working with Shell+2.2a :)
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:15:06 -0700, Ray Watts   
>>> <rayanddoraleew at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that the notorious case where files merged with Shell+2.1 
>>>> was  JUST  below 1024X8-512?  Then when you replaced 2.1 with a 
>>>> larger 2.2a  you  went over the 8k limit.  Sure sounds like it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>