Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplcomm!uunet!karln!karln!karln
From: karln@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: ISC 3.2/harddisk & floppy problems
Message-ID: <1991Jun17.141215.568@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 17 Jun 91 14:12:15 GMT
References: <1991Jun10.214243.7594@abqhh.hanse.de> <113@odiehh.hanse.de> <1991Jun15.003544.4596@chinet.chi.il.us>
Reply-To: karln@karln.UUCP ()
Organization: Sam76 - Pennington NJ
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jun15.003544.4596@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes:

>	by any software that wants performance.  Under DOS, Windows bypasses
>	the bios and goes directly to the (8 bit) hardware, as does
>	X11.  You run into more problems using the 16 bit mode than it

	Is this true for Roell's X11R4 implmentation? If it is, how come
when I "SHADOW RAM" the VGA BIOS, I get better than double the x11perf
test results?

					Just Curious, 
					Karl.


-- 
***********************************************************************
| Karl Nicholas             | A million monkeys in a million years    |
| karln!karln@uunet.uu.net  | did write Shakespear, we evolved ...    |
***********************************************************************