Subject: From: Date:

RE: [ECS] Where's the latest ECST update? Michael David Sun, 16 Aug 1998 23:20:27 -0400

---

HI Reddy!

I'll try to answer your questions, but I'll need some help form the rest of
the folks here:

>OK, looking through the .TXT files there is SYSINV.TXT.
>Is this file read by ECS, or is it merely a good idea to >document your
IRQs
>and I/O ports?

It's not read by ECS, but is a good way to track the changes you make to
your system so you can refer to it later when you forget.  :)

>At present, my ports are all OK. I don't see what convention
>is used for identifying the IRQs and ports if this is a required
>file.

If you are using either DOS version, the only place you need to set IRQs and
ports is within the ECS.DT file.  For the W95 version that's now all handled
by the OS.

>BTW, FREEPORT.EXE causes my system to reboot
>without reporting anything.
>Both the old 1994 version that I had and the 1998 version
>that is in the ECS package do this.

Never heard anything about this.  Anyone else?

>To remove the State-Log item subtypes, do we simply remove the line using a
>text editor on ECS.CFG with Subtype
>I assume the new Item would be:
>|Item:Log-Number                Type:State-Log   Acc:User/User
>| Initial State:(None)                                    Backup:No
>| File         :LOG.TMP

Yes.

>The other updates to ECS.CFG are straightforward to me, although more
>extensive than I had planned.

Yes, Mark has been busy! (Thanks Mark!)

>I am assuming here that the ECS.CFG files are similar between ECST and
ECSW.
>In fact, since the update documentation is the same, am I correct in
>assuming that I can simply port over my ECS configuration to a new Win95
>setup and it should work with relatively minor modifications?

I think so, with exception to those items in ECSW (now called ECS, with the
DOS version renamed to ECSD)
not supported in the DOS versions.

>One last question.... Does ECSW have a suitable replacement for Bigmouth ??
>I really do need to place pages over the Panasonic speakerphones.  And
>connecting from the outside work is really nice. (Although leaving my
>machine on full-time with a cable modem/Ethernet would be even better...

I had no luck with phone-interface-c, but I think many here use it
successfully.  I personally found the quality of the phone-ifc-c recordings,
both incoming and outgoing, rather poor.  It's really not Mark's fault.
Rather, it's the limitations of the hardware.  So, I have phone answering
stuff running on a second computer.

Anyone else have any other comments for Reddy on phone-ifc-c?

Finally, I would like to add that the switch to the W95 version is well
worth the effort, and I'm very happy I made the transition.

Cheers!

Michael David
michael@michaeldavid.com

---