From: "Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: CWSDPMI r5
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:40:18
Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc.
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <38fe35d2.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References: <38fcedb1 DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: dcloan.hou.aspentech.com
X-Trace: selma.aspentech.com 956202291 20174 10.32.115.107 (20 Apr 2000 03:44:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: postmaster AT aspentech DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2000 03:44:51 GMT
X-NewsEditor: ED-1.5.8
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> Charles Sandmann (sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu) wrote:
> : If anyone wants to volunteer to beat on it really hard - and I mean REALLY
> : hard, and put your reputation on the line that it's better than r4, drop
> : me a note.  I usually insist on booting on raw, xms and vcpi with about a
> : dozen different combos of HIMEM, QEMM, EMM386 type configurations and 
> : running several low memory environments, heavy page faulting while doing
> : hardware interrupts, etc.
> 
> Do I have to have more than X MiB of memory to be able to give it a
> useful beating?
> 							MartinS

Only the new big-memory features require big memory to test - and those
are probably well tested already by people asking to get a copy.  What it
really needs is the average/small memory systems with all sorts of different
boot combinations and compiles/games/etc run with it, TSR loading, severe
nesting, different flags set with CWSPARAM, etc.