Ferrous Moon
http://www.ferrousmoon.com:80/forums/

"cpuhacker" returns?
http://www.ferrousmoon.com:80/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1981		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  Tycho [Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:46 am ]
Post subject:  "cpuhacker" returns?
I just got a gloriously stupid PM:
Code:
Message subject: A little request. From: bioshacker001 Sent: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:06 am To: Tycho My system dosent even have enough ram to run the most recent version of uplink to help you adapt from, so i was thinking, why not prep the program to run off dos, to minimize ram usage. It should work if you use a converter and program in perl.
"Thinking", indeed.
Author:  Hawk_v3 [Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
Wouldn't that make absolutely no difference at all?</isn't sure, doesn't really program>
Author:  Soldier of Light [Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
If such a "converter" actually existed, it would likely use even more RAM. Also, perl doesn't run natively in DOS. And his suggestion is to rewrite ALL of the uplink source code in perl in addition to all of the changes made in onlink, and then run it through a "converter" to make it run in dos. Pure "genius."
Author:  Hawk_v3 [Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
Ah, so, a suggestion along the lines of impossibility of dividing by zero. >v> Oki.
Author:  Rickton [Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
No, no, it's quite possible, just a total waste of time.
Author:  sentinel [Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
I don't have anything to actually add here, but I've been waiting for a new topic, so I'll post :classy:
Author:  Rickton [Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
I was about to yell at you, but the :classy: smiley made it OK.
Also, hawk, is this: >v> supposed to be a flying bird? 'Cause that's totally what I see it as.
Author:  FinalWarrior [Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
>v>, >w>, >_> all look the same to me.

*Shifty eyes*

-- Griffinhart
Author:  prophile [Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
You know, the answer's really quite obvious. Just write an x86 emulator in perl.
Author:  Hawk_v3 [Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
Yeah, >v> is shifty eyez. Just one of my habits.
Author:  Rickton [Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
Well I'm going to keep thinking of it as a flying bird.
Author:  bioshacker001 [Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
ok, that is stupid. i didnt send that? i only know how to program in c++, and i just started teaching myself that! whoever hacked my account is an idiot. therefore derek was them.
Author:  bioshacker001 [Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
but, its true, my sys dosent have enough ram. any suggestions? the 64 bit version says incorrectly configured. and the 32 bit version says the same thing. i changed the .pdb file to exe, because .pdb is portable database, and i ran it. it says system dosent have enough memory to run. oh, and i just chose bioshacker because thats the agent name i always choose. this is my first time posting with this site. my pc just crashed, so im at the library. it dosent matter much, since i dont have internet at home, but still.
Author:  bioshacker001 [Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
anyway, any suggestions about the ram thing?
Author:  Tycho [Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "cpuhacker" returns?
Dude. The .pdb is debugging symbols, not an executable.

And the "incorrectly configured" message just means you need the Visual C++ 2005 or 2008 runtimes.
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC-05:00
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/