Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wuarchive!udel!brahms.udel.edu!danderer
From: danderer@brahms.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: 386MAX and Borland C++ 2.0
Message-ID: <19706@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 16 Mar 91 15:52:14 GMT
References: <1545@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM> <559@shograf.COM> <M1PHM02.91Mar15112950@mfsss1.fed.frb.gov>
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 20

In article <M1PHM02.91Mar15112950@mfsss1.fed.frb.gov> m1phm02@fed.frb.gov (Patrick H. McAllister) writes:
>
>Even without any fancy memory manager like 386^MAX, bcx seems to consistently
>crash my machine. The setup: Northgate 486/33 w/ 8 megs, standard Windows/
>Himem/Smartdrv, no interesting TSRs. If I go into bcx and rearrange or add
>editor windows, I am almost guaranteed to quickly die with a global protection
>fault. 

I'm real familiar with this, in a very different hardware environment:
a 'real' IBM AT, 2.6 Mb RAM, Himem.  I get the same behavior with
and without windows.

Borland Tech Support had no ideas.  My experience is it MIGHT depend
on how much extended memory I allocate to TKERNEL.  It MIGHT be
the case that giving TKERNEL more memory makes me hang less often.

-- 
    Dave Anderer        danderer@brahms.udel.edu       (302) 451-8805
Instructional Technology Center, University of Delaware, Newark, De.  19716
		"Sinners can repent; stupid is forever."