|
|
| Author |
Message |
carl
|
|
PC system files
| 
Feb 6 19:57 UTC 1994 |
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. |
jdg
|
|
response 1 of 31:
|
Feb 7 13:47 UTC 1994 |
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.
|
bdp
|
|
response 2 of 31:
|
Feb 8 21:40 UTC 1994 |
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* :)
|
carl
|
|
response 3 of 31:
|
Feb 9 04:04 UTC 1994 |
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!
|
jdg
|
|
response 4 of 31:
|
Feb 9 15:49 UTC 1994 |
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.
|
kentn
|
|
response 5 of 31:
|
Feb 9 19:07 UTC 1994 |
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.
|
bdp
|
|
response 6 of 31:
|
Feb 12 02:56 UTC 1994 |
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.
|
carl
|
|
response 7 of 31:
|
Feb 12 15:51 UTC 1994 |
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...
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 31:
|
Feb 12 17:50 UTC 1994 |
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.
|
bdp
|
|
response 9 of 31:
|
Feb 13 05:11 UTC 1994 |
(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.)
|
power
|
|
response 10 of 31:
|
Feb 17 05:46 UTC 1994 |
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...
|
bdp
|
|
response 11 of 31:
|
Feb 18 00:43 UTC 1994 |
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!)
|
power
|
|
response 12 of 31:
|
Apr 12 00:08 UTC 1994 |
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.
|
bdp
|
|
response 13 of 31:
|
Apr 12 04:22 UTC 1994 |
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.
|
power
|
|
response 14 of 31:
|
Apr 12 18:16 UTC 1994 |
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...
|
bdp
|
|
response 15 of 31:
|
Apr 12 19:48 UTC 1994 |
(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.
|
power
|
|
response 16 of 31:
|
Apr 13 06:14 UTC 1994 |
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 :)...
|
bdp
|
|
response 17 of 31:
|
Apr 17 17:40 UTC 1994 |
a little?
|
power
|
|
response 18 of 31:
|
Apr 17 21:06 UTC 1994 |
A little big... in the same way that IBM/Novell/Lotus/Borland are a little
big...
|
bdp
|
|
response 19 of 31:
|
Apr 18 02:31 UTC 1994 |
Microsoft is a little bigger than most of those. :)
just a little.
|
power
|
|
response 20 of 31:
|
Apr 18 05:48 UTC 1994 |
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....
|
kentn
|
|
response 21 of 31:
|
Apr 18 05:52 UTC 1994 |
Acquirals?
|
davel
|
|
response 22 of 31:
|
Apr 18 10:14 UTC 1994 |
Acquisitions, I think. (Or do you mean "*which* acquisitions"?)
|
davel
|
|
response 23 of 31:
|
Apr 18 10:19 UTC 1994 |
(Among their recent ones, USL, DRI, and WP come to mind. There are a bunch
of others I can't think of off hand.)
|
power
|
|
response 24 of 31:
|
Apr 19 17:01 UTC 1994 |
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... :)
|