Stability of QEMM-386 6.0

Article View: comp.os.msdos.programmer

Article #680

Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer Previous Next

#680

From: sorrow
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:26

17 lines
1341 bytes

I have QEMM-386 5.11, which has proven to be very very stable and works
with everything I own.  I bought 386^Max 6.02, which has DPMI support,
but I ditched it after two days because it refused to work with Windows
3.0 or with BC++ 3.0 ( rebooted occasionally for the hell of it ).  I've
been leary of upgrading to QEMM-386 6.0, since I've heard it has many
many bugs, and the latest version is 6.02...how is it?

Has anyone had problems with it, or without it?  The new STEALTH feature
is meaningless to me ( performance hit is not worth it ), and the 
squeeze fit is just as meaningless.  If I get the upgrade it will be
because it has either a.) more support for newer products, b.)
significantly less memory overhead, c.) significantly less bugs than
QEMM-386 5.11, or d.) more performance.

Any opinions via e-mail requested.

Brian

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Apr9.011522.6296@math.ufl.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!tulane!uflorida!math.ufl.edu!maple.circa.ufl.edu!SORROW

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!tulane!uflorida!math.ufl.edu!maple.circa.ufl.edu!SORROW
From: sorrow@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Stability of QEMM-386 6.0
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.011522.6296@math.ufl.edu>
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:26:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: math.1992Apr9.011522.6296
Sender: news@math.ufl.edu
Reply-To: SORROW%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: The CIRCA Underground
Lines: 17