C: That's actually a good point. But if YOU wrote
something, should I
trust it then?
NO.?
C: Thanks for the heads up. Oopha!
I will stop insulting you as soon as there is any indication that you
already know what we are talking about.? (such as that paragraph, or the
next one)? And just how am I, or anybody else, supposed to know that you
already know that EXE2BIN does NOT work on any and every .EXE (as is
implied in the MS-DOS docs)?
C: See I knew you were insulting me. At least you're honest, despite said statement a
paragraph ago. Regardless of what the MS-DOofiS manual says, I learned properly. I read
Peter Abel's book. I want to check the Tandy 2000 MS-DOS manual also. I believe it
gives more or less accurate info on that.
Incidentally the
"tiny" model in later versions of MASM indicate the resultant code would
become a.com, no?
Yes, but that is not all the requirements.? It is actually quite
easy to
make a file that is NOT compatible with being .COM in "tiny" model.? Some
obvious situations would be writing a device driver, writing code to
be ROM'ed, or writing an overlay module.
C: Okay. So the tiny model doesn't necessarily denote a .com. Gotcha.