Mail Archives: opendos/2000/11/25/17:14:35
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
To: <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Optimizing CONFIG.SYS...
> X-Comment-To: Patrick Moran
>
> Hi!
>
> 25-ξΟΡ-2000 06:44 pmoran22 AT yahoo DOT com (Patrick Moran) wrote to
> <opendos AT delorie DOT com>:
> When you run program then COMMAND.COM creates truncated (at paragraph
> boundary) copy of environment and if TSR not release environment then you
> get bigger environment chunk for this TSR if run it after defining new
> variables or expanding already present (in this case you expand variable
by
> 8 bytes).
It does not change the 112 bytes of environment space used in upper memory
by UNIVESA and NWCDEX whether I put it before or after those drivers are
loaded. If I put the SET commands before the drivers are loaded then it does
increase the env used by those two programs. Also with the SETs first,
NWCDEX does not completely load high, it has 7248 bytes plus env loaded low.
The Prompt string does not effevt this. With all of those SETs, the env
increases to over 400 bytes each. I don't recall the exact amount.
>
> >> ? Windows _not_ earase anything in %TEMP% directory.
> PM> Bet me. I have installed programs that have wiped it out.
>
> "Beat"?
-:)
> PM> You will definitely notice it in a true BLUE IBM PC/XT. Since it was
> PM> noticable way back then, I just turn it off. There is enough crap
already
> PM> that slows a system down because of drivers that have to be loaded. I
don't
> PM> need anything else to slow the system down. But if you would like, I
may be
> PM> able to run a program that calculates PI to 3758 decimal places and
gives
> PM> the time it takes in seconds, but not sure that it would affect this
machine
> PM> as it only takes 80 seconds. I would probably have to check it on my
old 286
> PM> board. But it was very noticeable on an XT.
>
> Slow downs may (or may not) be seen if this app very frequently
access
> INT 21 (what mean bad design by itself, btw). What common between
computing
> PI and accessing INT 21?
Break is always monitoring for the break keystroke. If it did not it would
be useless. Anytime you have some thing monitoring for some action, it has
to take away some CPU time to devote to that monitoring. I probably also
slows down drive transferes. That I can check with a utility that checks
transfere rates ubless the program turns it off for the test.
>
> In any case if you can proof slow downs with concrete numbers then I
> very interested in this.
>
> >> I don't use neither TASK MANAGER nor TERMINATE. I use Windows 3.x
and
> >> TERM90 from Norton Commander and have no troubles.
> PM> The terminal program does not matter. I could use PCTools commute or
any
> PM> other comm program. I use Task manager, because I hate WINDOZE. Get
tired of
> PM> it's bloated programs and crashing all the time. I use NT for that
crap. At
>
> NT on 386? :) You joke.
5x86-133 with 48MB RAM. Runs a lot better than WINDOZE 9x or ME.
>
> And I prefer Win on my machine because, for example, Desqview are
less
> stable _for me_. In addition I sometime use Word and Excel.
I use Star Office for that under either NT or Linux. I don't think they have
made a 16 bit versin of it and it is FREE. I prefer WP 6.1 under DOS anyway
and have Lotus 1-2-3. I can read and export to any of these and many more
with Star Office. I have converted WP format to Word format and did not even
bother to edit anything using Star Office.
Pat
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- Raw text -