From:	Radical DOT NetSurfer AT delorie DOT com
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	DOS extenders...
Date:	Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:37:53 -0400
Organization:	Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:	<euoort8nrkgqnqlt9ldricc7n433c73sug@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	newsabuse AT supernews DOT com
Lines:	34
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Is it fair to call 
   Cwsdpmi.exe simply a "Dos extender" ?

working with DJGPP, cwsdpmi is VERY EFFICIENT.  I would think
that a lot of effort went into making it so.

And is it not true that in order to gain the most out of such an
approach, the DPMI server should be as closely tuned in to a given
Compiler as possible...?  (code-generation, startup-code, linking
specifics, etc.)

I have attempted to run a program which claims to take Borland
32-bit Win32 application and convert them to something that can be
run in pure 16-bit MSDOS without any windows being present.

The "stubit" process changes references to Kernel32.dll, and
User32.dll such that standalone replacement modules can be
incorporated into the EXE.  Sounded fascinated when I first heard
about this, and it still does...

The Bcc32 Win32 applications end up with about 100k being chopped
off of them, and they do indeed run.... PROBLEM?
They run incredibly slower then their original versions (at least
using this particular DOS extender/Windows eliminator) !!

I was just wondering if anyone here, in DJGPP newsgroup, might want
to share any comments as to why / how, and what more can be done
to see 32-bit applications made happy without Windows 3.1x/9x being
used...

The DOS extender I refer to is Wdosx96.

Thanks....

- Raw text -