From: "Michael Stewart" <mike AT reggin DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: accessing the graphical video memory
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:01:44 +0100
Organization: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd.
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <7jg8ja$j66$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990607131549 DOT 2943F-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hgty.capgemini.co.uk
X-Trace: taliesin.netcom.net.uk 928753066 19654 194.42.240.2 (7 Jun 1999 10:57:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT corp DOT netcom DOT net DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 1999 10:57:46 GMT
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote in message ...
>_dos_ds provides much less protection, since it spans the entire low 1MB
>(plus 64KB in the HMA).  In contrast, the code posted here creates a
>selector which only includes the video memory, so if you accidentally
>overstep the limits, your program will crash, but the system will be
>protected.  As far as I understand, writing safe code was the whole point
>of using this method in the first place.

plus according to the FAQ this method will be slightly quicker.