Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 18:49:04 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: WDOSX In-Reply-To: <390579A0.2C693736@dasoft.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Tom St Denis wrote: > > > Martin Stromberg wrote: > > > > Tom St Denis (tom AT dasoft DOT org) wrote: > > : It's a really stable dos extender two main features over CWSDPMI > > > > : 1) Compressed executables > > : 2) It binds directly into your program, so no 'two exe' distributions > > > > : The cons: > > > > : 1) No virtual memory > > : 2) If you actually distribute more then one exe CWSDPMI takes less > > : space. > > > > Why is it that if the extender can be bound to the executable, it > > doesn't support virtual memory (like PMODE/DJ and WDOSX) while those > > which can't be bound does support virtual memory (like CWSDPMI)? > > > > Genesis, Wind and Wuthering, > > > > MartinS > > Pure coincident I suppose. Of course when you have 128mb available for > it, who cares about vmem? Well I bet that not many people have 128 MB installed... Anyway many people still have 16-32mb machines and on those machines there has to be support for virtual memory as GCC (especially the C++ compiler) often requires a inordinately large amount of memory to compile even simple apps..... Kalum Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)