Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!msuinfo!news
From: draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 386SX and EMS 4.0
Message-ID: <1990Oct20.204053.20116@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 90 20:40:53 GMT
References: <16508@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Reply-To: draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper)
Distribution: na
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Lines: 33

In article <16508@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes:
>
>In article <4460@bwdls58.UUCP>, mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes...
>> 
>
>I disagree.  I have a need to be able to load programs into high RAM, but
>not under the guise of protected mode.  The way to do this would be with the
>C&T chipset, which has built-in EMS 4.0 capability, rather than QEMM.  Alas,
>I don't have this capability, and am stuck with poor performance running
>heavy-duty coprocessor operations.
>
>It pays to consider all the options.
>
>jim
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital
> Equipment Corporation."
>
>James J. Reisert                Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com
>Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:     ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert
>77 Reed Road
>Hudson, MA  01749-2895

I thought that all access to EMS was through the protected mode, and
that even if you had a C&T chipset it didn't change things. The
C&t Chipset simply eliminates the need for an EMS board. Also I believe
that the software emulation of EMS on a 386 machine is faster than using
the C&T chipset because the 386 can switch between real and protected
mode very quickly compared to a 286. 

Patrick Draper  -----   Michigan State University