On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, Jourge Fuzz Bush wrote:
>And yes I have used olc, and I still say its not worth it for windows 95
>users.
Assuming Windows doesn't crash on you.
>Also I would say on average the mud editor is faster and less strain on
>your eyes.
Um, change your font then. Bigger, clearer, etc.
>and a reboot takes a mere few seconds. it's not like a full system
>reboot.
Reboot of what? Your machine? The MUD? Use the mini-mud index to load
only the zones you are working on and the required zones. That'll make it
boot a lot faster.
>Besides the matter olc takes quite a while to put in under win95
>considering that there is no patch programs that work properly and its
>quite a long patch.
So use Linux or other Unix to patch it for you, then tar+gzip it to
download. You can find versions of Linux that will exist on the same hard
drive partition as Windows, in addition to the Cygnus tools.
Otherwise you can ask someone to make a copy to upload on the CircleMUD
FTP site.
--
George Greer, greerga@circlemud.org | Genius may have its limitations, but
http://mouse.van.ml.org/ (mostly) | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
http://www.van.ml.org/CircleMUD/ | -- Elbert Hubbard
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST