Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!ugle.unit.no!ugle.runit.sintef.no!thoger
From: thoger@solan.unit.no (Terje Th|gersen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.desqview
Subject: Re: Whither QEMM?
Message-ID: <THOGER.91Jun10184319@lise22.solan.unit.no>
Date: 10 Jun 91 16:43:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: lise22.THOGER.91Jun10184319
References: <44396@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: news@ugle.unit.no
Organization: Institute of Physical Chemistry, NTH
Lines: 35
In-Reply-To: ferris@gradient.cis.upenn.edu's message of 10 Jun 91 12:27:23 GMT

In article <44396@netnews.upenn.edu> ferris@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (Richard T. Ferris) writes:


   >MS-DOS 5.0 FEATURE/BENEFIT SUMMARY
   >
   >* Memory Saving Features
   >
   > DOS LoadHigh - DOS loads most of itself into the HMA on 286/386 machines
   > UMB Support - Lets you move device drivers and TSRs up above 640k

   I am getting a 486 and am considering buying QEMM-386.  I am wondering
   whether these new DOS5 features eliminate most of QEMM's usefulness.

   --RF
   Richard Ferris
   ferris@grad1.cis.upenn.edu

Even if you're not running DesqView, the loadhi procedures of QEMM
surpass the loadhigh and devicehigh commands of DOS 5.0 in utility.
(i.e. DOS 5.0 doesn't have a loadhi /h or /s etc..)

Also, I think DOS 5.0 puts files + lastdrive etc in low mem, whereas
QEMM's companions lets you loadhi these memory-munchers..

(And, if you're curious about something about your computers use of
memory, MFT is *slightly* better than "mem /program" :-))

Regards,
  -Terje

--
____________________________________________________________________________
thoger@solan.unit.no       |                 Institute of Physical Chemistry
THOGER AT NORUNIT.BITNET   | Div. of Computer Assisted Instrumental Analysis
                           |               Norwegian Institute of Technology