Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:09:25 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Alex Soto <alex DOT soto AT analog DOT com>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: V2 = hmmm
In-Reply-To: <rerwx32viot.fsf@thanos.analog.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960429190238.1013F-100000@is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On 26 Apr 1996, Alex Soto wrote:

> I'm not sure if people have done this, but it would be nice to have a
> comparison for memory usage between the extenders available.
> Apparently this new cswdpmi is substantially better than the old go32.
> How does it compare to dos4g...in terms of memory usage, speed,
> limitations, etc... ?

IMHO CWSDPMI blows any other DPMI server off the water.  It is the only
one I know about that can let you run protected-mode programs on a system
that has only 64KB (that's no mistake: 64K, not 640K) of conventional
memory and NO extended memory at all; it only takes 50KB for itself (any
other memory manager won't settle for less than 500K); it implements DPMI
0.9 at least as well or better than any other DPMI host; it implements
some DPMI 1.0 extensions (only one of the other hosts can do this; Win95
can't); and if you have some problem or bug, you can have the solution
much faster than with the other software.  To say nothing about the
price...