Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!valley From: valley@uchicago (Doug Dougherty) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps Subject: Re: Anybody use Helix NetRoom? Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 15:35:32 GMT References: <1991Apr5.134307.18171@eng.ufl.edu> Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Distribution: na Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 28 greg@irl.ise.ufl.edu (Greg O'Rear) writes: >With all the discussion about QEMM, this seems to be the place to ask: >Does anybody out there have any experience with Helix NetRoom? A recent >magazine review gave it high marks. The claim is that NetRoom works like >QEMM with the advantage of being able to load all network stuff up above >640K (like IPX and NETn, and I presume packet drivers as well). Helix >have some multiple user pricing schemes as well; QEMM is sold one copy at >a time. I've used HeadRoom (Helix's original product) on 286 machines a lot, and give it high marks. Although they say that HR can't handle network drivers at all, I have been loading my NET3 module high for years now, with XLOAD (OK, they're right, you can't *swap* a network driver, but you can XLOAD it) I have no experience with NetRoom, but I do know that you can load IPX and NET3 high with QEMM with no problem. (Insert standard words of high praise for QEMM here) P.S. Don't take my .signature seriously. I have already gotten hate mail over it from the humor impaired... -- (no .sig yet) (By the way, is it really true that no one takes you seriously if you don't have a .sig? Just checking...)