Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.apps:990 comp.os.msdos.programmer:3215
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!acfcluster.nyu.edu!jqg9462
From: jqg9462@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: RE: QRAM VS. QEMM
Message-ID: <1991Feb7.074029.1@acfcluster.nyu.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 91 12:40:29 GMT
References: <26661@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <26662@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Sender: notes@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Notes Person)
Distribution: usa
Organization: New York University
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: acf7.nyu.edu

In article <26662@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes:
> 
> I am using a 386 and QEMM386.  However, since I am running into conflicts
> with other protected mode programs, I was wondering whether or not it would
> be better if I switched to QRAM.  
> 
> What benefits does QEMM have that QRAM doesn't?  All I am doing is loading
> my device drivers high.  I don't configure any EMS except for specific 
> applications and then I boot off of a special boot floppy to configure
> all my memory as EMS.

QRAM works on EMS cards. If you don't have EMS cards, it'll do little for you.
QEMM works on 386 and convert exTended memory to High Mem.

Jun

P.S.: How can I subscribe to this list from internet or bitnet?
      Thanks.