Message-ID: <3802B556.4F1BECF0@snetch.cpg.com.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:13:10 +1000
From: Michael Abbott aka frEk <20014670 AT snetch DOT cpg DOT com DOT au>
Organization: Student of Computer Power Institute
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DJGPP Mailing List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: allegro gone missing?
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 991011122627 DOT 28307G-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Heya


> > > CWSDPMI. It's free. Get it at the Zip Picker.
> >
> > I don't know about everyone else but for speed I usually use Win '95s
> > DPMI...
>
> Are you saying that Windows' DPMI server is faster than CWSDPMI?  Or are
> you saying that it is smaller.  I find it hard to believe how could
> someone make such claims.

I know this is the wrong list for this (biased opinion :) but IN MY
EXPERIENCE Windows '95 DPMI has been faster. I don't know about smaller but
it has definitely been faster. Try running Quake I (DOS ver) under Windows
'95 and then try it under DOS using CWSDPMI... :)

But like I said before CWSDPMI is definitely better at catching oddities in
the program :)

- Michael