From: kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:38:00 -0400
Message-Id: <9605151538.AA03637@quasar.bloomberg.com >
To: slee AT fs1 DOT mar DOT lmco DOT com
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <3199C1F7.1E3B@fs1.mar.lmco.com> (message from Shawn Lee on Wed, 15 May 1996 07:37:27 -0400)
Subject: Re: djgpp 2 DPMI
Reply-To: kagel AT dg1 DOT bloomberg DOT com

   Sender: g595160 AT fs1 DOT mar DOT lmco DOT com
   Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:37:27 -0400
   From: Shawn Lee <slee AT fs1 DOT mar DOT lmco DOT com>

   Shawn Hargreaves wrote:

   > That would cover "absence of DPMI", but what about "faults"? Binding a
   > DPMI host into the program is no good if the machine is already running a
   > buggy DPMI: you can't load up and use cwsdpmi in a win95 DOS box, for
   > example.
   > 

   Is that true?  You can't run cwsdpmi under a Win95 Dos window?  Why
   would I need to keep cwsdpmi?  If I write a robust code, any host would
   do, right?

You do not need CWSDPMI in a Windows DOS box, windows provides DPMI services. 

Various DPMI providers contain various bugs.  CWSDPMI is cleaner than most and
so more trouble free.

-- 
Art S. Kagel, kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com

A proverb is no proverb to you 'till life has illustrated it.  -- John Keats