From:	"Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: CWSDPMI r5
Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:20:17
Organization:	Aspen Technology, Inc.
Lines:	25
Message-ID:	<38fcedb1.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000417111317 DOT 14867V-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	dcloan.hou.aspentech.com
X-Trace:	selma.aspentech.com 956118865 10630 10.32.115.107 (19 Apr 2000 04:34:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	postmaster AT aspentech DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date:	19 Apr 2000 04:34:25 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

> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Jacek Pichla wrote:
> 
> > Where to get CWSDMPI release 5 which is mentioned of in FAQ 2.03 ?
> 
> It wasn't released yet.  I was too optimistic when I tried to predict the 
> future ;-).

You should consider r5 in an extended beta ... I've been too busy to finish
the final set of mods I would like to make - and noone has complained who
has ftp'ed the recent test version.  It doesn't do much for anyone unless
they have and need to use big chunks of memory (more than 128Mb physical or
more than 255Mb total virtual).  And it still has some physical memory 
performance issues around 512Mb physical - so it solves a very narrow range
of people's problems.

For people needing the extra memory I'm happy to let them join the "extended
beta" - but given the number of bugs I've found and fixed which no one else
reported - I don't consider it as stable as r4 for general purpose use.

If anyone wants to volunteer to beat on it really hard - and I mean REALLY
hard, and put your reputation on the line that it's better than r4, drop
me a note.  I usually insist on booting on raw, xms and vcpi with about a
dozen different combos of HIMEM, QEMM, EMM386 type configurations and 
running several low memory environments, heavy page faulting while doing
hardware interrupts, etc.

- Raw text -