From: Radical DOT NetSurfer AT delorie DOT com Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: DOS extenders... Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:37:53 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse AT supernews DOT com Lines: 34 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Is it fair to call Cwsdpmi.exe simply a "Dos extender" ? working with DJGPP, cwsdpmi is VERY EFFICIENT. I would think that a lot of effort went into making it so. And is it not true that in order to gain the most out of such an approach, the DPMI server should be as closely tuned in to a given Compiler as possible...? (code-generation, startup-code, linking specifics, etc.) I have attempted to run a program which claims to take Borland 32-bit Win32 application and convert them to something that can be run in pure 16-bit MSDOS without any windows being present. The "stubit" process changes references to Kernel32.dll, and User32.dll such that standalone replacement modules can be incorporated into the EXE. Sounded fascinated when I first heard about this, and it still does... The Bcc32 Win32 applications end up with about 100k being chopped off of them, and they do indeed run.... PROBLEM? They run incredibly slower then their original versions (at least using this particular DOS extender/Windows eliminator) !! I was just wondering if anyone here, in DJGPP newsgroup, might want to share any comments as to why / how, and what more can be done to see 32-bit applications made happy without Windows 3.1x/9x being used... The DOS extender I refer to is Wdosx96. Thanks....