HI guys,

Just wanted to let you know that asmstudio is still in strong in development. Johan and I, have been working hard on it for awhile. Check it on www.asmstudio.cjb.net We would appreciate any feedback, download the source if you like.

Jon Richardson
Posted on 2001-12-12 22:07:03 by Asm_Freak
There were page errors -- unable to download, but it looks nice. :)
Server object error 'ASP 0177 : 80080005'
Server.CreateObject Failed
/asmstudio/downloads.asp, line 6
Server execution failed
Posted on 2001-12-12 22:13:03 by bitRAKE
asm_freak,

Plug-in functionality not completed... I wrote a plugin toolkit thatyou can use. Look it up from plate-source-code search for "Shawn Bullock"... it's fairly complete and generic...


Thanks
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-12-13 00:28:35 by _Shawn
I appreciate that shawn, but plugin functionality was completed a year ago, but there aren't any plugins :)
Posted on 2001-12-13 01:48:33 by Asm_Freak
Hi

I agree it looks very nice.

But like bitRAKE it's unable to download.

Please can you fix error in download page Thx.


Server object error 'ASP 0177 : 80080005'
Server.CreateObject Failed
/asmstudio/downloads.asp, line 6
Server execution failed


Colio
Posted on 2001-12-13 13:16:47 by colio
Yea, were working on that :)
Posted on 2001-12-13 14:59:19 by Asm_Freak
The server has crashed, I'll update you all when we get rid of all the problems of the site up on a new server.

Jon
Posted on 2001-12-14 20:10:03 by Asm_Freak
asm_freak:

can you upload the program to the form ? or send to my email ?



bye

eko
Posted on 2001-12-14 20:26:55 by eko
Here ya go. Leave some feedback for me. At the moment it does NOT work with win xp. Put it in the main drive, whether it's C, or D or whatever.


http://www.geocities.com/jprare/asmstudiobi.zip

I would have uploaded to the board, but the max the board can hold is 300kb

Jon
Posted on 2001-12-15 19:10:54 by Asm_Freak
Posted on 2001-12-15 19:13:06 by Asm_Freak
Asm_Freak your link work fine.

Colio
Posted on 2001-12-15 19:20:24 by colio
At the moment it does NOT work with win xp



:( i use only xp . i hate win 9x and me ..
Posted on 2001-12-15 19:46:50 by eko
Eko, use 2k... there isn't really at the moment a hell of a lot of reasons
to use XP, unless you're one of those... <insert bad word>... sort
of persons that like the new ugly UI.
Posted on 2001-12-15 21:19:28 by f0dder

At the moment it does NOT work with win xp.


Hmmm... it runs fine under WinXP... where are the problems?
Posted on 2001-12-16 08:25:17 by bazik
At the moment it does NOT work with win xp.


yeah bazik is right . it works fine on xp


f0dder: actully i used win2k . but the time that takes to windows load in start up is realy realy realy long
xp only fw sec and the windows up ( using P2 350MHZ)

about the ugly gui . well you can choose your theme or even create you own (check out tgtsoft.com)

basicly win2k . was th best thing microsoft have done until the xp. i didnt have 1 crash with him compare to win9x that i had 1,000,000........

xp is much faster and stable than win2k .

bye
eko
Posted on 2001-12-16 11:55:49 by eko



about the ugly gui . well you can choose your theme or even create you own (check out tgtsoft.com)


check out www.themexp.org :alright:
Posted on 2001-12-16 12:37:17 by bazik
XP faster than win2k? Well, it boots faster. And util you turn all off
the happycrappy new ugly GUI stuff, it's a good deal slower. And
even when you turn off all that crap, it's still not *faster* than win2k.
And why does boottime matter? With the uptime of win2k, your turn
on the box in the morning and turn it off in the evening.

XP much more stable? Give me a break. At best it's as stable as win2k.
And there's still issues with some drivers... they *appear* to work,
but you get more or less random crashes (not BSODs, but misc.
application crashes).

I think I've said all of my reasons for disliking XP before, and some
of them are quite substantial (like the spying). I will not move to XP
unless I actually have to, for it has no new features that are worth
speaking of (except perhaps that you can detach debuggers from
processes, but still...).
Posted on 2001-12-16 14:20:27 by f0dder
well for telling the turth i cant actully say that xp is faster and stable than win2k .

the main reason i'm using xp is the boot .real fast comparing to win2k ..

about spying . i dont think microsoft that stupid.. they wont risk they self just for spying on people . i think its just a stupid rumor


a question : does win2k have compatibility mode(run as win9x,me and etc..)??
Posted on 2001-12-16 16:19:14 by eko
Compatibility mode is useless. It can't run the stuff that *really*
requires 9x, and there aren't (m)any apps that only "sort of" runs
bad on 2k.

As for spying, heh... even corporate version of XP (the one that doesn't
require you to phone microsoft to get an activation code) connects
to sa.windows.com:80 behind your back. And no, this is not a rumor,
I blocked that address myself in my firewall (before I kicked out XP
again).
Posted on 2001-12-16 16:25:15 by f0dder
f0dder,

You're stuck! On 2K for your OS & on 1K posts;)
Posted on 2001-12-17 00:28:11 by farrier