Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:40:00 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: ajschrotenboer <ajschrotenboer AT lycosmail DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DPMI 0.9 vs 1.0
In-Reply-To: <361D48E9.3604BACD@lycosmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981013183936.4278h-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, ajschrotenboer wrote:

> I was wondering why, if there is a 1.0 standard, why do most DPMI
> servers (I think this includes CWSDPMI, I may be wrong) only support
> 0.9??

Because Microsoft, who have created DPMI, shortly afterwards decided
it wanted DOS to go away.  So they don't want to support any API that
will make the life easier for DOS programs.

The bugs in the DPMI server built into NT (which are more numerous and
nasty than those in Windows 9X) clearly show the trend.  Fortunately,
they cannot live with too buggy DPMI in Windows 9X because a major
part of Windows itself loads as a DPMI client inside a DOS box.