Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:58:04 +0500
Message-Id: <200004251558.UAA01162@midpec.com>
From: Prashant TR <prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <8e3iqo$i6j$1@antares.lu.erisoft.se> (eplmst@lu.erisoft.se)
Subject: Re: WDOSX
References: <38ff20bd$0$58948 AT SSP1NO17 DOT highway DOT telekom DOT at> <39045ED0 DOT 3F417452 AT dasoft DOT org> <8e3iqo$i6j$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Why is it that if the extender can be bound to the executable, it
> doesn't support virtual memory (like PMODE/DJ and WDOSX) while those
> which can't be bound does support virtual memory (like CWSDPMI)?

There's no reason as such. Even if the extender is bound to the EXE, it *can*
provide VM support. Maybe, they feel VM is not very much necessary these days.