To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Comment-To: "Patrick Moran" <pmoran22 AT yahoo DOT com>
References: <84A5E9D2033 AT reze-1 DOT rz DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
    <000101c056e1$cbe162f0$ce881004 AT dbcooper>
Message-Id: <2.07b7.JAQZ.G4L6C5@belous.munic.msk.su>
From: "Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:14:29 +0300 (MSK)
Organization: Locus
X-Mailer: dMail [Demos Mail for DOS v2.07b7]
Subject: Re: Optimizing CONFIG.SYS...
Lines: 22
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

X-Comment-To: Patrick Moran

Hi!

24-ξΟΡ-2000 20:18 pmoran22 AT yahoo DOT com (Patrick Moran) wrote to
<opendos AT delorie DOT com>:

PM> in UMB and still have 67k left. Of course I don't use EMS, I hate EMS and so
PM> not use it unless I have a program that really REQUIRES it. I have dunped
PM> most of those programs and found ones that use XMS. EMS is the dunbest thing
PM> ever invented and should have died with the XT! You try and cram megabytes
PM> of stuff into expanded memory through a tiny 64k window on memory 8k blocks
PM> at a time. Extremely inefficient. Of course Intel screwed up with the 80286
PM> and the EMS crap continued. If I need EMS I use QEMM in Stealth mode to get
PM> decent amount of memory, however on this system I now have, QEMM is too
PM> stupid to work effeciently, I get more even with DRDOS EMS than with QEMM.

     What _really_ you have against EMS? EMS have two differences from XMS:
(contra) it uses extra 64K system wide window (frame) but (pro) memory in
this window requires only _mapping_ by 16K chunks whereas XMS requires
memory _copying_ (what slow downs apps execution) and requires also buffers
in apps to copy from/to.