Thank you for the URL for the Winsock 2 update. I was aware of the update but did
not mention it for a reason. There are probably many people that would be willing
to run the client but not upgrade their machines. Additionally, I am trying to
sneakernet this particular machine. There is no reason for it to go after the
WinSock code when the batch parameter is used.
I am using this particular machine to benchmark the new code as Brian Gladman
requested.
Greg Childers wrote:
> I got the same error. The Winsock 2 update for Win95 is available at
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/contents/wuadmintools/s_wunetwo
> rkingtools/w95sockets2/default.asp
>
> After I installed the update, everything works fine except for the annoying
> ':0' appended to the machine name. I suspect that's for SMP machines?
>
> Greg
>
> At 01:43 PM 12/17/99 -0500, Mary Beth Wirtz Osiecki wrote:
> >I just tried to run this on a W95 machine and it would not start. The message
> >was WS2_32.dll missing. I suspect that this is a Winsock 2 DLL. My machine,
> >like many others only has Winsock 1 installed.
> >
> >Brian Gladman wrote:
> >
> > > I have made an alternative Windows port available and Rob has now
> > kindly put
> > > this up on his site. I have compared this with the cygwin port on my
> > own NT
> > > system and it does a lot better (>60%) when MMX is not available.
> > >
> > > I would be interested to know how well (or poorly!) this does on other
> > > Windows OS variants and with different underlying processors.
> > >
> > > Brian Gladman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2000 - 15:26:58 MET