Mail Archives: opendos/2000/12/04/14:04:27
Hi,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florian Xaver" <dos DOT fire AT aon DOT at>
To: <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: BASIC & EMS (was: Optimizing CONFIG.SYS...)
> > Wrong. Yes, Win 3.x is an "preemtive multasking" (i.e. cooperative
> >multitasking) but Win95 is an... hm, forget the word which describes
> >displaced multitasking... for Win95 native apps, also as DV, Linux and...
> >NT.
>
> Wrong :))
>
> Win3.x and Win9x are cooperative multitasking, The latest version Desqview
> (not older versions) and Dr-DOS taskmanager (7.03) are pre-emptive
> multitasking which is much better.
Actually, I don't remeber the first version of DV was that I used but it was
something like 2.31 or 2.41 and it did have pre-emptive multitasking. I am
not certain what version I currently have on this system now. I zipped up
that directory along with QEMM when I switched over to using Task Manager. I
believe it is 2.61 with some update. I think the last version of DV was 2.7
but don't think I ever bothered with it as I was already quite satified with
Task Manager and no longer needed EMS memory to hog UMB. As for Windoze, it
uses a combination of both types but i don't recall which is which with it.
I am not at all certain what NT 4.0 is using. That is I am currently using,
but whatever it is it sucks because whenever the HD is running, nothing else
can do anything. I have to just sit and wait. I finally got tired of it and
dumped the temporary internet files and deleted them and told IE 5 not to
use it. Now I get some decent speed and can actually read my mail while some
web site takes forever to load. I never did find out what good that caching
of web pages was ever good for, except to slow down your computer, but that
is another story.
> >PM> So what is XMS. And what does Task manager use.
>
> No, Taskmgr uses the "Virtual V86 mode". A driver can provide XMS, but the
> Taskmgr has only some (as much as you want :)) virtual virtual v86 mode
> "windows", where 16-bit programs can run.
That is what I have been saying for quite some time, I am glad someone
understands it. Everyone is talking about EMS and XMS. And yes each task in
Task manager can use as much memory as it wants above 1MB, that is until you
run out of memory:))
> >PM> I believe it uses DPMS which is DOS Protected Mode Services. That is
> >PM> what I use for multi-tasking in DOS.
>
> Wrong. DPMS is an API which moves most of an driver into RAM/Extended
> memory.
I am assuming by driver you mean Task Manager, the program itself. tes that
is what it does.. You don't need a frekking EMS memory or page frame for
Task manager. You only lose a few K of memory from what you have in
conventional when you start a task. I have not really bothered to check it
recently, why I lose that few K of memory, but it is probanly to the
resident portion of COMMAND.COM that each task would need. I'll have to
check that sometime. But I only lose something like 7K and when I am well
over 600K to start with, it does not hurt anything.
As I recall, but it's been three years or more, the most I could ever get
with DV was something 540K per task. I remember that I could get more if I
pushed it for a single task, but then you could not switch tasks. I have a
few programs that will not run with that linitation.
> >PM> That is EXTENDED memory in PROTECTED MODE. I believe it is virtual 86
> >PM> protected mode that Task manager uses. There is no freeking memory
> swapping
> >PM> with Task manager.
>
> Yes.
Thanks, I am glad someone understands it.
> >PM> Desqview, on the other hand, uses stupid time consumming memory
> swapping
> >PM> through a tiny 64K window and uses stupid EMS to do it. Each process
> running
> >PM> is swapped into and out of conventional memory.
>
> Not the latest version.
I don't think I have tried the latest (2.70?) but I know where I can get it
off the WEB and check it out sometime. But I think it still uses EMS and
needs QEMM. But I am going to try and check out DVX first. What does the
last version use? I thought I read somewhere where it uses v86 mode, but it
has been at least a couple of years since I have even talked about on FIDO
or anyplace else.
> >
> >PM> Try Linux sometime and you will not even mention things like EMS,
XMS,
> DPMS,
> >PM> DPMI,VCPI and a ton of other crap.
> >
> > Because Linux not based on real mode apps/system (i.e. DOS).
That is one of my major complaints. The old DOS should have died with the
XT. When tha AT came out, DOS should have been rewritten as a superset of
the OLD DOS. But gates and company did not know what they were doing and IBM
insisted on downward compatibility. What they should have done is had 86-DOS
and 286-DOS. However, Intel goofed on the 286 and said they would not
guarantee future compatibility if programmers used the undocumented opcode
that would put the 286 back into real mode. As far as I was concerned, who
cares if you ever went back into real mode. There was no need for it, if DOS
had been written correctly to begin with. I wrote about this a little in
another message in which I pointed out what IBM had done with the 286 BIOS
and that my 286 MB could do the same thing. The only hangup was the OS and
the fact it could only run in real mode.
> Yes, Linux as a 32-bit protected mode system, DOS supports 16/32-bit
> real/protected mode.
Actaully they have been working on 64 bit mode for some time now. I haven't
checked into it lately because I have been forced to run Windoze for the
last couple of years (work related) and haven't kept up with it that much,
but there might even be experimental alpha kernels using 64 bit now.
Pat
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- Raw text -