X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Subject:	Re: CWSDPMI r5 update test
From:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Date:	Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:26:07 CDT
Message-ID:	<466796ef.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References:	<46667144$0$20285$9b4e6d93 AT newsspool3 DOT arcor-online DOT net> <1181165616 DOT 159482 DOT 10320 AT x35g2000prf DOT googlegroups DOT com>
Lines:	17
NNTP-Posting-Host:	clio.rice.edu
Organization:	Rice University, Houston, TX
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
X-Trace:	joe.rice.edu 1181194687 20948 128.42.105.3 (7 Jun 2007 05:38:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT rice DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2007 05:38:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-NewsEditor:	ED-1.5.9
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> I have also CWSDPMI V0.90+ (6b), it's dated 2001.
> Which one is better to use?

Some version someplace had all the updates, but I honestly don't remember
where it was and if it was ever put on a public site.  r6 might have all
the updates.

The r5 update was supposed to be a temporary fix while r6 was released.
Primarily driven by Symantec for inclusion in Ghost DOS images.
There were some compatibility issues with r6, which never were resolved,
so it never was finalized.  At some point people quit bugging me about it
so I quit working on it.

If you need big memory footprints (bigger than 400MB), especially in big
chunks, r6 is better if none of the compatibility issues bite.

r5 (or the update) is fine for 99.99% of the other usages.

- Raw text -