I'm trying to come up with a boot disk that will allow me to keep as
much free memory as possible for DOS applications.  Since most of
what I use is in Windows, I want to keep the current autoexec.bat and
config.sys unchanged on c:.

What I'm wondering is what drivers do what, what can be loaded high,
and what is necessary for multimedia (cd, vga or svga, sound card).

These are my current files:

@echo off
set blaster=A220 D1 I5 T3
c:\wndblcd\mscdex.exe /d:mvcd001 /m:10 /v
loadhigh C:\DOS\SHARE.EXE /l:500 /f:5100
PROMPT  $p$g
PATH C:\DOS;C:\WINWORD;C:\WINDOWS;c:\wndblcd
TEMP=C:\DOS
C:\MOUSE\LEMOUSE.COM
C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.EXE
win

DEVICE=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
FILES   = 40
REM BUFFERS = 20
STACKS  = 9,256
DOS     = HIGH
DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\  /p
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\DBLSPACE.SYS /MOVE
BUFFERS=10,0
device=c:\wndblcd\mvsound.sys d:5 q:7 s:1,220,1,5 m:0 j:1
device=c:\wndblcd\tslcdr.sys /d:mvcd001 /r

31 responses total.

First, try to devicehigh and loadhigh ALL of your drivers.  You look like
you need an emm386 with nomem option, and dos=high,umb.  Of course,
those would be needed with dos 5, and you appear to be using dos 6.
If you still need them, stick 'em in.  The mem/c command can tell you
where all your drivers and tsrs are.  Also, the "msd" command
in your \windows directory can show you your umb block usage.
If a driver or tsr can't be loaded high, they'll be loaded low, and
mem/c or msd can tell you about them.

ditto.  I had some ideas lined up, but they're the same as #1.
You could start chucking drivers you don't absolutely need.  Also, DOS 6 tends
to use more base memory than DOS 5 does.  And DoubleSpace is *scary* :)

Thanks for your help.  You're right on track.

I since dug up the manual to read mored about memory usage.  I thought
UMB's were automatically used by DOS 6.  Not so.  The manual said that
"memmaker" will run emm386 and load programs and devices into free
UMB's.

The good news is that I didn't have to keep two copies of the autoexec.bat
and config.sys files.  The ones I currently have work great for DOS and
Windows.

BTW, doublespace can be scary.  All the DOS files (except for 3 or 4)
are compressed and unavailable if the system is booted from any disk
other than the compressed hard drive.  I've been backing it up every month
just for good luck!

I mentioned "nomem" option in my response #1.  I think, instead, I should
have typed "noems" instead.  EMM386 has two purposes.  One, to simulate
LIM4 EMS memory, which most modern MS-DOS programs don't require.  Two,
to manage DOS UMBs.  If you have an application that requires EMS memory,
you can set up a minimum amount of EMS -- 64K -- and then let Windows
use the EMS drivers that it loads to simulate as much as you need, virtually.
However, if you don't use the "noems" option, and instead, use the "ram"
option to include EMS simulation drivers, you'll chew up a lot of memory
sticking those drivers into the EMM386 tsr.  Several hundred K, I think.
Windows 3.0 had the drivers built into it, but 3.1 needs EMM386 to simulate
EMS.  Ah, well.

Not having a math coprocessor means I need to have the EMS simulation
to get gcc's 387 emulator to run.  I think I also have a couple TSRs
that are not aware of XMS (bad TSR!).  Fortunately, I don't do Windoze,
so I don't need to worry about its effects.  Unfortunately, simulating
EMS is not nearly as neat as just using XMS.  Guess I should get a 387.

re:EMM386 - *any* of the commercial memory managers are better.  The nice
        thing about them (besides the fact that they tend to free up more
        memory than MEMMAKER could possibly imagine) is that they dynamically
        allocate both XMS and EMS from a great big pool of extended memory.
re:DoubleSpace - if you don't want to worry about your data going up in smoke,
        try either SuperStor or Stacker.  Solid products you don't have to
        worry about.

As an update, after running memmaker Windows started getting errors it
hadn't had before.

So I copied the autoexec.bat, config.sys and the two smaller dblspace.*
files to a boot disk, then ran memmaker /undo.

With a boot from C: I have a (so far) error-free Windows environment.
With a boot from A: I have a (so far) error-free DOS environment.

It works.  I'm happy (so far).

BTW, thanks for the info about memory management.  I'm trying to get
by until Chicago is available.  *Hopefully* it will take care of
these things automatically...

I tried using MEMMAKER once.  In its wisdom, it took some stuff out
of high memory that I had already loaded there and put it in
low memory, *decreasing* the available low memory.  Never again.

(re#8: Chicago is all hype.  NT was originally supposed to be Chicago.
 Don't believe MicroSoft.  Give OS/2 a shot... you'd like it.)

  Chicago actually looks quite nice--I saw a beta.  Decent multi-tasking,
looks somewhere between X and OS/2, fairly fast...
  And it's going to be a lot easier getting software for Chicago than
for OS/2...

Gee, so far it's: OS/2: 2,500+   Chicago: 0  application-wise.  
Sales?            OS/2: 4.5 million+  Chicago: 0
(4.5 million sales of OS/2 2.0+)
Availability?     OS/2 2.0?  been out for two years
                  Chicago?  Won't be out for another two years (at least!)

Don't say that the amount of software for Chicago won't matter because Chicago
runs DOS & Windows applications - OS/2 runs DOS and Windows applications 
extremely well.

Microsoft is *all* hype.  Some magazines are *actually* starting to see that
too (and it only took them three years!)

  Let's look at this comparison a little farther:

  Chicago's planned release date, first of all, is late '94, which I see
no reason to disbelieve extremely--the beta I saw looked pretty nice
already... they might possibly delay it until early '95, but oh well...
that's still not 2 years....

  Secondly, within a year of Chicago's being out, I think we can safely
say that most applications will be recompiled for Win32...  OS/2 has
been out for several years, and its still hard to find applications for
it (without, of course, resorting to DOS/Windows applications, which, as
you point out, are irrelevant)....  Windows applications can also, I believe,
be expected to be a little better optimized--compare Ami Pro for Windows
with Ami Pro for OS/2...

  In short, yeah, right now OS/2 is doing better than Chicago, but the
comparison is unfair, since Chicago hasn't been released yet.  A more
appropriate comparison would be of OS/2 with Windows 3.1, in which OS/2
loses rather badly (in terms of copies sold, applications available, etc).

  OS/2 is doomed, at this point.  It has some technical merits, still, but
many of them will be made irrelevant by Chicago, and it just hasn't sold
enough copies.  IBM is even moving away from it--they are incorporating
it into "Workplace OS", which, you will note, was not called OS/2--apparently
simply to avoid the stigma of a product which hasn't sold well.

They can't call it OS/2 because Workplace OS is a totally different product,
based on a Microkernal, targetd toward RISC-based systems (ultimately the
PowerPC).

Also, there's a new version of OS/2 on the horizon - 2.2 - which will finally
adress all the last "loose ends" that everyone wants tied up.  

  It sounds, however, as though 2.2 might be the last version of OS/2, as
such.  You're right, Workplace OS is a totally different product--which
OS/2 is being drawn into.  The tendency now is towards portable operating
systems, which can run on lots of different systems--OS/2 breaks this by
being closely tied to the 386 archetecture.
  Windows, or at least Windows applications, on the other hand, will
probably be around for the foreseeable future.  The PowerMac even comes
with an emulator!  Windows NT, Wabi, and a few other emulation schemes
help fill in any gaps...  I'm not aware of any comparable products for OS/2
based programs.  I'm not sure whether that would be even possible--from what
I know of the internals of OS/2, its pretty closely tied to the x86 platform--
is this true of its applications, as well?
  In short, of course OS/2 is a better product, technically, but the Commodore
Amiga was a better computer than the IBM, at the very least, when it first
came out.... how many people do you know that are using Amigas?  Or, more
pertinantly, how many corporations (aside from those doing heavy video work,
in which arena Commodore still retains a hold, although other platforms are
catching up) use Amigas?  It is the same sort of thing with OS/2...

(I don't even know if Commodore ever actually sold 5 million Amigas in two
years though :).  OS/2 (itself) is slowly getting away from being
tied in so closely with the x86s... WorkPlace OS (which, IMO, is
basically an upscaled OS/2 for PowerPC/RISC workstations) will be based on 
Mach.  The applications are much *less* hardware-dependant than most
WinApps I've seen.

  Workplace OS is another beast altogether, although IBM is certainly drawing
from their experience with OS/2 in this...  That still has some hope, since
it doesn't sound as though Microsoft has their act terribly together with
NT... Still, IBM is starting with a handicap--Microsoft has become a familiar
logo on the desk of a LOT of people...  I don't remember the figures for
sales on Windows 3.1/3.11, but it's a lot more than 5 million!!!!
  On the non-x86 based systems, though, IBM has more of a chance, at least...
I cheer on any threat to Microsoft, at this point--they're a little big :)...

a little?

  A little big... in the same way that IBM/Novell/Lotus/Borland are a little
big...

Microsoft is a little bigger than most of those. :)
just a little.

  I can't quote you figures, but I somewhat doubt that, especially with
IBM.  Novell is beginning to make me nervous, too, with all of their
recent acquirals....

Acquirals?

Acquisitions, I think.  (Or do you mean "*which* acquisitions"?)

(Among their recent ones, USL, DRI, and WP come to mind.  There are a bunch
of others I can't think of off hand.)

  Those are the main ones that I'm thinking of....  Between Netware, Unix,
DRI's stuff (notable DR-DOS, now called Novell DOS), and WordPerfect, this
is a company which is getting large enough that I'm GLAD that Microsoft
is giving them some heavy competition...
  Of course, the converse is true too... :)

We'll sit back and watch them both blow it completely.

  Unfortunately, I don't think that's likely... although if it were to happen,
it might allow some REAL competition once more... :)

I hope nobody minds a beginner joining this discussion.  My question is this :
Is it advisable to acquire OS/2? Why is the point of running DOS and Windows
applications on OS/2 irrelevant?

Well, if you own DOS and WinDOZe apps and you want to run OS/2 it isn't
irrelevant.  I think people figure, though, that WinDOZe is better at
running WinDOZe apps so why not run that instead?  If there is a program
you need to run that is only available for OS/2, then perhaps you'll
end up with OS/2 and you won't need to worry about the irrelevance...

Rauol, I've read a lot of articles about DOS, Windows and OS2
(mostly in Windows Magazine).  They say that OS2 is a better
dos than DOS and a better windows than Windows.  It runs
faster, has better memory management, crashes less often and
has faster disk access.

The one drawback with it is that OS2 doesn't support as many
non-IBM options as Windows does.  I tried to install it on
my machine and the installation software locked up.  I'd 
recommend that you be sure to buy it from a place with a 
money back guarantee if you decide to purchase.

BTW, I *still* can't wait for Windows 4.

I have heard that it looks just like a Macintosh.

The interface may look similar, but trust me - it works a LOT differently than
a Mac - everything's consistent. :)

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss