From owner-freebsd-emulation  Wed Aug 28 16:13:10 1996
Return-Path: owner-emulation
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA07165
          for emulation-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA06951
          for <emulation@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id QAA18251; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:11:58 -0700
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:11:58 -0700
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
Message-Id: <199608282311.QAA18251@kithrup.com>
To: doon@eeyore.lv-hrc.nevada.edu, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Is VME going to be considered with the DOS emulator?
Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-emulation@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> 	With all of the renewed talk about the DOS emulator I was wondering if
>> the Pentium (tm) Virtual Mode Extensions (VME) were/are going to be
>> used? They seem to make vm86() much easier!
>Not while my test machine is a 386/40 8)  If you're serious about it, grab 
>Sean's patches and see how VME could Make Things Better...

I'd highly recommend not trying to add pentium and p6 specific improvments
until the basic code works well enough to run "ls.exe" ;).

Sean.