Hi Peter:

PF>  PF> I suggest you let C++ do it for you (create a class 
PF>  PF> that looks like a memory pointer but really does file 
PF>  PF> i/o),  or use Windows NT instead.
PF> 
PF>  TF> Why would I want to switch to NT?  I'm kinda surprised to
PF>  TF> hear you say that.
PF> 
PF> I hope it stings some IBMers to hear me say so too.  This 
PF> is one of the things that would be easy to fix,  and has 
PF> not.

I recall reading an article on WARP Server SMP that claimed that this
product has improved memory handling.  As I recall, it wasn't clear
whether they were talking about using machines with massive amounts of
physical RAM, or the OS's memory architecture.  It struck me that there
wouldn't be much left of 16 bit code in WS SMP, so perhaps they changed
the memory architecture which, as I understand it, will create
per-process improvements at the cost of reduced performance for 16 bit
applications.  Perhaps you know something of this?


Best wishes,

Tom
tom.brown{at}swp.com

 * KWQ/2 1.2g * Ooops!...Got my floppy caught in my PKZipper...

--- GEcho/2 1.20/Pro