#help-QB on Access!
11 messages in this thread
Keith, I have enjoyed Access! alot, but am having a problem at the moment.
I have an A3000. When I try to download LHARC.EXE with QB, I get a
"Failure during protocol initilization" message. Any ideas? Thanks.
Spencer, I haven't tried downloading with the release version of Access! in
quite some time now, but I understand that some changes were made to the
CIS end of the software a while back (a yr ago??) and the changes may well
have caused Acc!'s QuickB protocol to stop functioning <sigh>.
At this point, I don't forsee making any changes to the released
version due to the fact that I no longer have much of a resemblence of the
source code anymore. After the 1.42 release, I had made some fairly
drastic changes for a (then) up-comming relase, but half-way into the
changes, I moved to Md. to start a new job and since then have had
virtually no 'spare time' to work on it.
Now for the (optimistically) good news… I've recently had a little
bit more 'spare time'. At this time, I don't have any announcements to
make, and in fact, if anyone asks, I'll deny hinting at what I might be
working on <grin>.
I'll try a download or 3 with 1.42 and try to verify that it no longer
works (has anyone else had it working lately?), but I suspect it is broke.
You might want to take a look at 'BackTalk' (available in LIB 5 of
'User)… It's a nice program, and works well under the 2.0 OS.
Keith
Keith,
I tried it just a few months ago and it died a horrible death. Basic
symptom was that it would download fine until it got to the 64th block and
then it would get timeout errors or just plain lockup. Still great for
conferencing though.
Brian J. Bartlett
Ah, ok… I thought it was having trouble getting started (and maybe it has
both problems… <grin>). Thanks for the info.
Keith
Keith,
I still use Access1.4 (not even 1.42) for most of my 'live' CIS downloads,
and it works fine, even at 9600 baud, on my 2500. Haven't tried it with
2.0 or on a 3000, though.
Betty
Hmmm… interesting, I'll have to actually try a few versions then… It's
posible that I switched from QuickB to B+ between 1.4 and 1.42 (I don't
recall when/if I did). It sounds like 1.4 works anyway.
Thanks for the info,
Keith
Hi Keith,
What's the status on a Access! anyway? Last time I looked at it, it was up
to 1.42. I always like it as it was one of the more colorful Amiga term
programs, and the half screen mode was nice. But I registered Jrcomm (I
liked the Zmodem stuff builtin and now use NComm (for the scripts).
But Access! was always nice and deceptively easy and worked very well with
other programs like RZSZ, whatever the name of the PC Pursuit dialer was,
etc. and a very good term program to recommend to novices.
Rick,
First off, thanks for all the kind words! The last public release of
Access! was indeed v1.42 (back in oct. of 88 as I recall). As I had hinted
in an earlier msg, I am working on (a total re-write) the porgram (err..
program) again, as time permits.
I really hate to say much about it at the present time because I don't
have any good estimate on how long it might be before it will be ready for
release… only that it will likely be several months from now.
As soon as I feel I can, more details will be posted here.
Thanks again,
Keith
No problem, always glad to point users to the right program for their
needs.
I guess I had missed your earlier message about the rewrite. Eric
Schwertfeger (a friend of mine who used to haunt CIS) use to quote messages
from you about Access! a lot, and I seem to remember that back around the
time of 1.42 he was saying you were even then working on a totally new
version. Hence my question on it's status. ;-D
Personally, I use TapCIS for CIS access, Telemate for everything else on
the PC. And use the PC for 99% of my telecom work.
When I do use one of my Amigas for comms work, I use NComm because of the
scripts. When Jack comes out with a new version of JR-Comm with scripts,
I'll go back to my registered copy of it.
I use Access (1.3a!!! 🙂 for QB downloading quite often, under both 1.3 and
2.0. No problems ever encountered.
–>Steve Bennett
Thanks, it sounds like the problem is with the B+ implementation, which I
beleive was done in v1.42.
Keith