Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:21:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: MORRIS JP <jpmorris AT csm DOT uwe DOT ac DOT uk>
cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: What good is GEM?
In-Reply-To: <199703181409.OAA19982@milly>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970320011755.12128b-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, MORRIS JP wrote:

> > and otherwise what advantage(s) does it provide?
> > 
> 
> One of the things GEM is good at is files.  It seems to use low-level FAT file
> routines, and this permits it to remove wierd files, with spaces in their names
> and so on.

Will this cause it to have problems running under DOSemu?

I've never seen GEM so I'm highly curious as to wether or not I'd
even benefit with it.  I'm running Linux with X, and just
reinstalled WFW 3.11 again to use WP 6.1.  Right now this setup
works pretty good (except the WFW part).  What benefit would I
have of using GEM?  I suspect that I probably wouldn't use it,
and that it would be aimed at people with much lower needs.  Is
this assumption correct?


Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT  DOT on DOT ca

  Visit my homepage if you want your Dynamic IP address on your webpage.