home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1 / NN_1993_1.iso / spool / comp / virus / 4818 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-05  |  1.0 KB

  1. Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!news
  2. From: David_Conrad@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu
  3. Newsgroups: comp.virus
  4. Subject: Re: VSHIELD, VIRSTOP, ... comparison ? (PC)
  5. Message-ID: <0006.9301051858.AA13030@barnabas.cert.org>
  6. Date: 23 Dec 92 10:16:52 GMT
  7. Sender: virus-l@lehigh.edu
  8. Lines: 18
  9. Approved: news@netnews.cc.lehigh.edu
  10.  
  11. In VIRUS-L v5i207 Nemrod_Kedem@f101.n9721.z9.virnet.bad.se (Nemrod Kedem) write
  12. s:
  13. > > 3) VShield uses much more memory than VirStop.
  14. >
  15. >But may be loaded to high memory, and then needs less then 1K of
  16. >conventional memory.
  17.  
  18. Implying that Virstop cannot?!  Virstop can be loaded high, and then
  19. requires no conventional memory.
  20.  
  21. And still, VSHIELD will use more high memory that Virstop, reducing the
  22. number of other things you can have loaded high simultaneously.
  23. Even with loadhigh in DOS 5.0, smaller is still better when it
  24. comes to memory-resident programs.
  25.  
  26. Regards,
  27. David R. Conrad
  28. David_Conrad@mts.cc.wayne.edu, dave@michigan.com
  29.