From: mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: make conflicts with turbopascal
Date: 12 Mar 1997 11:05:11 GMT
Organization: Oxford University, England
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <5g62l7$qvv@news.ox.ac.uk>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970311232540 DOT 2704J-100000 AT is> <5g5lqj$n91 AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> <5g5nc7$npc AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sable.ox.ac.uk
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Paul Derbyshire (ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA) wrote:

: Paul Derbyshire (ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA) writes:
: >> 	1) 16-bit DPMI programs (like many Borland products).  This is
: >> a limitation of the DPMI spec, and there's nothing you can do about
: >> that short of getting a real-mode or a 32-bit DPMI program with the
: >> same functionality.
: > 
: > Windows 95 is a DPMI host and runs these, and DOS/4GW programs, without a
: > hitch. Why is CWSDPMI unable to?

: Addendum: W95 is a *32-bit* DPMI host.

I think the point here is that in the DPMI spec doesn't make any 
allowance for mixing 16 and 32 bit applications, and so CWSDPMI is DPMI 
compliant even without this support. I don't know about the internals of 
DPMI servers, but I expect there's a technical problem which makes it 
awkward/unreliable to support both.

Can make spawn 16-bit processes under Win95 then?

-- 
George Foot <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
Merton College, Oxford