X-Originating-Host: 202.158.31.3
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
Subject: Re: VBE question
Lines: 18
From: batchex <thedark1NOthSPAM AT phreaker DOT net DOT invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Message-ID: <28c76e20.c6fa7a9c@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000404140314 DOT 9459M-100000 AT is>
Bytes: 680
X-Wren-Trace: eF96UlNKDUcMC0NSXh5MXRxsX1JIXh5CX0EeUlNfBk0AC1EPBEcEAgIQCA==
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:11:35 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.13
X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse AT remarq DOT com
X-Trace: WReNphoon2 955138015 10.0.2.13 (Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:06:55 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:06:55 PDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000404140314 DOT 9459M-100000 AT is>, Eli
Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, batchex wrote:
>
>What's wrong with the method suggested by the FAQ, anyway?
>
Umm, I just looking for a compromise, between memory protection
and near pointers. Because I'll do much ASM in the project,
using far pointers can cause much pain for me, all that pushing
& popping segment pointers.

And I think I left that behind when moving from real mode to
protected mode programming....


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!