Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:19:04 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: russell DOT thamm AT dsto DOT defence DOT gov DOT au
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: UPDATE : Page Fault During Interupt
In-Reply-To: <6s01b5$10v$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980827141843.6326R-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 russell DOT thamm AT dsto DOT defence DOT gov DOT au wrote:

> It appears that under a DOS box (Win95) that virtual memory is disabled,
> contrary to many claims that I have seen.

Can you support this with facts?  

As far as I could see, virtual memory is *very* real in a DOS box.
For example, I can get 64MB of virtual memory on a machine that has
only 64MB physical memory, as if Windows itself and other DOS boxes
were not there at all.