🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7310002@hpuamsa.UUCP> frank@hpuamsa.UUCP (Frank Slootweg CRC) writes:
     I only have used DESQview a little bit. I could get 562128 bytes free
   in a (full screen) COMMAND.COM DESQview "window".

     With Windows/386 I can get 578096 bytes free in a *full screen*
   COMMAND.COM "window" ("Windows beats DESview by over 15K!" :-)).
     To this you can add the resident size of COMMAND.COM (nearly 4K (I
   think) see "map[mem]", "mi" etc.) if you start your application directly
   from a PIF file (instead of *via* COMMAND.COM).

     The Windows/386 test was done on a *2* MB HP Vectra QS/16  with :

   - 636 K (*not* 640) of Base/Convential memory (our (HP) machines have a
     4K extended BIOS)
   - BUFFERS=8
   - FILES=20
   - *no* drivers
   - *no* TSRs
   - WIN.INI: windowmemsize=420 (or down to 385)
   - WIN.INI: emmsize=0 (because windowmemsize!=640)

     The DESQview test was done on the same system (perhaps with 640 K Base
   Memory). I think that DESQview *claimed* that it could give more but it
   did not. The numbers from the Memory Status command (*before* opening the

Mmph.  I tried Windows 386 and Desqview 386 on 2M (total ram) Intel 386 boxes.

When running typical user applications I support (Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3,
kermit, some others) Desqview beat Windows cold.  Windows 386 could barely get
Wordperfect 5.0 up in a full screen.  Desqview 386 held all 3, plus GEM or
Harvard Graphics (though it got into disk [or designated ramdisk] swapping
after a point).  Maybe I missed something in RTFM (Windows 386 M is lousy,
Desqview's better but not great).

Please tell me if you know I'm wrong.

Windows 386 did much better with applications written for Windows.

It wasn't clear from your post, but if you ran Desqview with *no* drivers, you
weren't running Desqview 386.  Desqview 386 is Desqview 286 with QEMM.SYS.

I typically set BUFFERS and FILES = 20.

esulzner@cadev4.intel.com

--
Eric Sulzner	esulzner@cadev4.UUCP   esulzner@cadev4.intel.com   54177