home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10274 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3190
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!jarthur.claremont.edu!tlilley
- From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
- Subject: Re: Some miscellaneous questions about os/2 from early info
- Message-ID: <1992Dec15.000521.23485@muddcs.claremont.edu>
- Sender: news@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System)
- Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
- References: <1992Dec14.192938.10637@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Dec14.203549.18060@muddcs.claremont.edu> <-+k288g@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:05:21 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <-+k288g@rpi.edu> gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
- >When I was cleaning my desk, I found some information about os/2 from
- >back in may 1990 in MSJ. Since it concerned os/2 2.0, I had some
- >questions regarding these facts to see if they were actually true when
- >os/2 was released.
- >
- > 1) it states that in os/2 2.0 the total code and data space available
- >to an app is 512Kb, and that this restriction will be removed in later version.
- >Is this really true? or is it only for console apps? In my mind, this is
- >a *BIG* problem, reminds me of MSDOS.
-
- That's 512 MB, not 512 Kb. Misprint.
-
- >
- > 2) it says later on that os/2 has a built in math emulation library
- >which eliminates the need for each app to be compiled with emulation ""s
- >This is a very good idea, and I don't know why ms didn't do it with windows.
- >Is this still true?
-
- Yes, I believe so. At least, that's what I've heard. I have a mathco, so
- I've never needed to check.
-
- Ted
-
-
-