From: "Jon Harrison" Received: from [192.168.100.201] (HELO mail.2rosenthals.com) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTP id 1980654 for ecs-t6x@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:16:21 -0400 Received-SPF: none (secmgr-ny.randr: 216.162.174.5 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of seadog.reno.nv.us) client-ip=216.162.174.5; envelope-from=jharrison@seadog.reno.nv.us; helo=pop5.greatbasin.net; Received: from pop5-wpti.greatbasin.net ([216.162.174.5] helo=pop5.greatbasin.net) by secmgr-ny.randr with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KJX5T-0004fg-QX for ecs-t6x@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:16:20 -0400 Received: from DP6550.seadog.reno.nv.us (seadog.reno.nv.us [216.82.144.188]) (authenticated bits=0) by pop5.greatbasin.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6HHGBTH003043 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:16:12 -0700 Received: from TYAN (TYAN [192.168.1.35]) by DP6550.seadog.reno.nv.us (Weasel v 1.72) for ; 17 Jul 2008 10:16:11 -0700 Message-ID: <100-587e7f48-39225.012@seadog.reno.nv.us> To: "eCS ThinkPad T60/61 Mailing List" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:16:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <192863.07.25.08.17.07.2008@seadog.reno.nv.us> References: <192863.07.25.08.17.07.2008@seadog.reno.nv.us> Priority: Normal User-Agent: PMMail/3.01 (os/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; i386; ver 3.01.01.1091) X-Mailer: PMMail 3.01.01.1091 for OS/2 Warp 4.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [eCS T60/T61] Flash on T61 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: _SUMMARY_ On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:13:27 -0400, madodel wrote: >Sorry but I'm running the same version of Flash which works fine with the >Adobe site http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/welcome/ and reports itself as >9.0.115. This is on eCS 2.0 RC4. > >Working UNIAUD32.SYS is 574,348 bytes, 5/17/2008 2:48:48 > >D:\MMOS2>bldlevel uniaud32.sys >Build Level Display Facility Version 6.12.675 Sep 25 2001 >(C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2001 >Signature: @#Netlabs:1.9#@##1## 17 May 2008 17:18:46 OK, thanks. Something is setup wrong with my system I guess. I note that the timestamp differs slightly but I don't know if that would make a difference or not. Your uniaud32.sys is reported by bldlevel with a time signature of 17:18:46 and mine is 17:18:42, both of us are 17 May. I can't recall if mine is the debug version or not. Jon