Date:	Tue, 25 Apr 2000 18:49:04 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender:	root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: WDOSX
In-Reply-To:	<390579A0.2C693736@dasoft.org>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10004251846000.2392-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Tom St Denis wrote:

> 
> 
> Martin Stromberg wrote:
> > 
> > Tom St Denis (tom AT dasoft DOT org) wrote:
> > : It's a really stable dos extender two main features over CWSDPMI
> > 
> > : 1)  Compressed executables
> > : 2)  It binds directly into your program, so no 'two exe' distributions
> > 
> > : The cons:
> > 
> > : 1)  No virtual memory
> > : 2)  If you actually distribute more then one exe CWSDPMI takes less
> > : space.
> > 
> > Why is it that if the extender can be bound to the executable, it
> > doesn't support virtual memory (like PMODE/DJ and WDOSX) while those
> > which can't be bound does support virtual memory (like CWSDPMI)?
> > 
> > Genesis, Wind and Wuthering,
> > 
> >                                                         MartinS
> 
> Pure coincident I suppose.  Of course when you have 128mb available for
> it, who cares about vmem?

Well I bet that not many people have 128 MB installed...

Anyway many people still have 16-32mb machines and on those machines there
has to be support for virtual memory as GCC (especially the C++ compiler)
often requires a inordinately large amount of memory to compile even
simple apps.....

Kalum

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)

- Raw text -