| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Sio vs Sio2k |
Kevin ..
KN> I am kinda stuck here, maybe some has some experience and might can
KN> help out. I have Sio 1.60 and Sio2k, each one has a problem running on
KN> my system, I have had to chose the lesser of two evils, but I'd like to
KN> get get one of them fixed.
I've got both of these registered as well. I've never seen any issues at
all for dialup with either one of them. Actually, I've got BBS systems
running on both on different boxes. I can tell you that HyperHost works
equally well on either one. But HyperAcess Pro doesn't work well on the
client end to connect to a HHost for me. Thus for the box that is to run a
remote site remotely, SIO 1.60 is better for that purpose.
Other than that I've not seen what you describle at all with dial-up ANSI
elements of Bink/Max operations here, nor even with Intermail running on
the same box in a DOS-VDM session as the OS/2 Bink/Max both POTS and Telnet
for more BBS operations on that same box!
Now ..
I'm curious. Granted I've never seen what you describe. But somewhere in
the back of my mind, I think I recall that you actually can run SIO 1.60 on
a given port and simultaneously run SIO2K on another port?
If so, that would be a heck of a way to solve the problem, but it might work?
Just a thought.
--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)
Mike {at} 1:117/3001
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Ziplog Public Port (1:117/3001)SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 @PATH: 117/3001 100 106/1 2000 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.