Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!busker!p8.f14.n105.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Howard.Spindel
From: Howard.Spindel@p8.f14.n105.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Howard Spindel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: QEMM vs 386Max
Message-ID: <1075.253EC840@busker.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 19 Oct 89 15:57:57 GMT
Sender: ufgate@busker.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/14.8 - Busker's Boneyard, Portland OR
Lines: 27

I had been using 386Max for a long time with Desqview, and decided
to give QEMM a try so that I could get the screen virtualization
feature to work. Screen virtualization works fine, but to my
surprise my computer is up to 20% slower running QEMM than 386Max.
This is visible both in benchmarking software and subjectively. Has
anyone else seen this? As a possible explanation, I am theorizing
that QEMM uses the virtual 8086 mode of the 386 but 386Max uses
only protected mode, and that virtual 8086 mode is slower.
 
Also, with QEMM installed a Ctl-Alt-Del locks up the computer
instead of rebooting. I tried the QEMM switch which tells it that my
keyboard is funny but that didn't help. A program which writes the
1234 soft boot pattern and jumps to FFFF:0 works about 90% of the
time, but locks up sometimes too. The computer is a true blue AT
with an AOX Master 386 accelerator board. Any ideas? I'll try to
call Quarterdeck on this one but we all know how hard it is to get
through to them.
 
Eschew Sesquipedalian Obfuscation!
Usenet:     Howard.Spindel@p8.f14.n105.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Fidonet:    1:105/14.8


--  
Howard Spindel - via FidoNet node 1:105/14
	    UUCP: ...!{uunet!oresoft, tektronix!reed}!busker!14.8!Howard.Spindel
	    ARPA: Howard.Spindel@p8.f14.n105.z1.FIDONET.ORG