From: russell DOT thamm AT dsto DOT defence DOT gov DOT au
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: UPDATE : Page Fault During Interupt
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 01:10:04 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <6s501c$rih$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980827141843 DOT 6326R-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.5.217.4
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980827141843 DOT 6326R-100000 AT is>,
  Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 russell DOT thamm AT dsto DOT defence DOT gov DOT au wrote:
>
> > It appears that under a DOS box (Win95) that virtual memory is disabled,
> > contrary to many claims that I have seen.
>
> Can you support this with facts?
>
> As far as I could see, virtual memory is *very* real in a DOS box.
> For example, I can get 64MB of virtual memory on a machine that has
> only 64MB physical memory, as if Windows itself and other DOS boxes
> were not there at all.
>

It appears that I made the classic mistake of assuming win95 is consistent
<g>. On my machine at home, I have no virtual memory in a DOS box. On my work
machine I do.

I make my judgement about this on the basis of Rhide. In a DOS box (at home)
and under CWSDPR0 (and CWSDPMI with virtual memory disabled), Rhide always
reports less available memory than physical memory. Under CWSDPMI with
virtual memory enabled, Rhide always reports more available memory than
physical memory.

On my work machine, this is not so for a DOS box.

I have no idea what the difference is.

Russell


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum