From: "Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Memory amount and PMODE
Date: Sun,  8 Oct 2000  8:44:01
Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc.
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <39e033d1.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References: <20001007141427 DOT 10046 DOT qmail AT idisys DOT iae DOT nsk DOT su>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dcloan.hou.aspentech.com
X-Trace: selma.aspentech.com 971013218 28644 10.32.115.107 (8 Oct 2000 13:53:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: postmaster AT aspentech DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Oct 2000 13:53:38 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

> Namely, I expected to have all memory :( and didn't think about additional
> limitations (except virtual memory). I hope somebody can help me with 
> PMODSTUB tuning. Or offer another DPMI server (stub), because I have no
> choice - only single EXE file (consumer demands) and even all data must be 
> attached to the executable in EXEDAT format.

Please send me an email next week and I'll let you test a new version of
CWSDPMI r5 embedded in the stub.  Right now my system is down due to 
construction :-(

There is no "tuning" in PMODSTUB which can fix your problem.  I can migrate
the CWSDPMI 64Mb+ support into PMODE, but this is much lower priority for
me right now then getting r5 released.