To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Comment-To:	"Florian Xaver" <dos DOT fire AT aon DOT at>
References:	<01c05c58$3bc02720$b356b7d4 AT default>
Message-Id:	<2.07b7.NOSX.G4XY0W@belous.munic.msk.su>
From:	"Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:43:44 +0300 (MSK)
Organization:	Locus
X-Mailer:	dMail [Demos Mail for DOS v2.07b7]
Subject:	Re: BASIC & EMS (was: Optimizing CONFIG.SYS...)
Lines:	19
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

X-Comment-To: Florian Xaver

Hi!

2-δΕΛ-2000 13:05 dos DOT fire AT aon DOT at (Florian Xaver) wrote to <opendos AT delorie DOT com>:

>>     Oh, yes. :( I muddle the "preemptive" word with "cooperative". But I
>>mistake only in this: Win 3.x cooperative for "Win3 apps" and preemptive for
>>DOS apps. Win95 cooperative for "Win3 apps" (for compatability reasons)
>>_but_ preemptive for both DOS and "Win95" apps. Yes, Win95 have some jams
>>when both Win3 and Win95 apps call, say, GDI, but this is another history.
FX> Mh... I always thought, that Windows is also for DOS programs cooperative.

     "Cooperative" mean subjects of cooperation know about cooperation and
_should_ do some actions to support this. This counted as worsted point in
Win3 design because this is hard to obey when produced many apps by many
vendors - this is why even Win3 native app can so easy to freeze Windows.
But DOS apps designed without cooperation in mind, so preemptiveness for
multitasking DOS apps is required.

- Raw text -