BootDisk.info
-
Some notes about Dos USB support:
"There are several ways folks are getting their USB CDroms, Hard Drives, and other drives to work in DOS. One is using what's known as DUSE driver system. The second method is using what looks somewhat like standard CDrom driver files and a USB driver. Both methods appear to require loading an usbaspiX.sys file first in config.sys in most cases. The third method is a bootdisk from a USB vendor. Method 4 is getting good reviews also."
But it doesn't say what method 4 is!!
-
I wouldn't worry about it. USB is just a passing fad anyway, by the time Windows 98 and DOS 7.0 get released, it'll be a thing of the past.
-
I'm not sure where you were quoting from, but I searched for DOS on the bootdisk.info site, and came up with
http://www.bootdisk.info/articles.php?action=show&id=67Your quote is at the top, and is then followed by a detailed explanation of each of the 4 methods.
-
Most bioses nowadays support USB device emulation for older OSs.
USB hard-disks show up as normal drives in dos, USB keyboards work, etc.
Quite a few modern bioses support sata natively too, meaning that you don't need drivers for the sata controller (unless you enable raid of course).
-
They should change several to few.
Several implies 7 or more.
-
@Raiko said:
They should change several to few.
Several implies 7 or more.
Common misconception. "several" actually falls between "a couple" and "a few".
-
@rbowes said:
@Raiko said:
They should change several to few.
Several implies 7 or more.
Common misconception. "several" actually falls between "a couple" and "a few".
From Merriam-Webster:
Several
1 (omitted - not relevant to this context)
2 a : more than one <several pleas> b : more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches> c chiefly dialect : being a great many
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=several
-
@shadowman said:
@rbowes said:
From qsort():@Raiko said:
They should change several to few.
Several implies 7 or more.
Common misconception. "several" actually falls between "a couple" and "a few".
From Merriam-Webster:
Several
1 (omitted - not relevant to this context)
2 a : more than one <several pleas> b : more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches> c chiefly dialect : being a great many
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=several
a couple
a few
several
-
@PJH said:
From qsort():
a couple
a few
several
From Pratchett, on how trolls count:
one, two, many, lots
http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/09/14/academic-spats-revisited-one-two-many/
-
@shadowman said:
Several
2 a : more than one <several pleas>
My dad’s a lawyer—he’s told me that lawyers always use “several” when referring to more than one of something, and on many occasions this exchange has occured:
Lawyer: [blah blah] several [blah blah]
Judge: How many [blah] was that, again?
Lawyer: Um... several?
Judge: How many?
Lawyer: (finally says the actual number)
-
I am of the opinion that correct several/many/few usage depends on context - in particular, on the scarcity of the item being described.
To wit: "I have many Ferraris" makes sense for someone who has five of them - but "I have many grains of rice" is clearly inappropriate for the same number.
Context in terms of the goal of the writing can alter usage as well. If we want to be dryly humorous, 'a number' is generally quite a bit funnier than 'a few' even though they'd be appropriate for the same quantities of target item:
"Jed, it seems, was then hit square in the face by a few of the shotgun pellets he had recently fired" is not quite as funny as, "...hit square in the face by a number of the shotgun pellets..."
Therefore, I... well, I don't really do anything. That's just the way it is.
