I was able to make QEMM work with the beta version of W98. But never bothered to do much with it and never tried it with W98SE because by then no one was supporting QEMM. Last time I saw any of the old staff members at a trade show in SoCAL, they had faded out of the mainstream when their founder(s) sold financial interest and went on to other dot comm projects as members of a Venture (Vulture?) Capital Group in the so-called Gold Coast of Southern California (Ventura County to San Diego County).
Bob George wrote: >howard schwartz wrote: > > >>[...] >>Perhaps my goal can be accomplished by using other shells than >>command.com, that can execute dos functions. NT had cmd, norton >> >> >had > > >>its version of command.com, etc. Perhaps I can run one of these >> >> >dos > > >>compatible shells, and it will run dos commands, as I wish. >> >> > >Let me make sure I understand: > >Is the memory of loading a 2nd copy you object to? >Or the load time? >Or the idea of loading 2 copies that you don't like? > > > >>The advantage is adding lots of favorite dos programs to the >> >> >windows > > >>repitiore, without the extra time, memory, and overhead of an >> >> >extra > > >>shell. >> >> > >But you still load a 2nd program (shell) so until you open another >(two command prompts under DOS), you haven't gained THAT much, >have you? Not that it's a bad idea per se, but I honestly don't >see the payoff. > >If DOS or load times are the issue, some of the Win9x optimization >tricks might yield as much/ more benefit, and improve performance >for ALL programs. > >The was a QEMM for Win95 as well... but no idea if it'd work at >all for Win98. > >- Bob > > > >
