Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!hpuamsa!frank
From: frank@hpuamsa.UUCP (Frank Slootweg CRC)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: DESQVIEW 386 W/ 600K APPLICATIONS
Message-ID: <7310003@hpuamsa.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jan 90 07:59:27 GMT
References: <213400081@s.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: HP NL
Lines: 36


  After retesting last night I found that the test conditions for my
DESQview test were a little different from those given for the
Windows/386 test. Mea culpa :-).
  Under the *same* conditions DESQview gave 569968 bytes free (i.e. 7840
bytes better than reported earlier).

  The new Memory Status table was :

			Total		Total		Largest
			Memory		Available	Available	
Common Memory		17408		14226		14200
Conventional Memory	  622		  615		  580
Expanded Memory		  912		  688		  560

  I think that Windows/386 has the advantage of being able to run a
command without help from COMMAND.COM, so my remark '"Windows beats
DESview by over 15K!" should have read '"Windows beats DESQview by 11.4K
at best!"'.

  Other data not reported earlier :

- The resident size of "our" COMMAND.COM is 3536 bytes (instead of
  "nearly 4K").
- The tests were done on MS-DOS 3.3.

Disclaimers:

  I have not tuned DESQview in any way. I only tuned the system on which
DESQview ran. I got my DESQview results after only a few hours.
  The Windows/386 were obtained after many months of (on and off) use
and investigation. <sentence on documentation deleted by Net Police> :-)

  Perhaps we could get some responses from Quarterdeck and Microsoft?

Frank Slootweg, Hewlett-Packard, HP-UX Support, Dutch Customer Response Center.