Message-Id: <199805180308.XAA10277@smtp.cisnet.com>
From: "Glenn W. McCorkle" <glennmcc AT cisnet DOT com>
Organization: Arachne Fan Club
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:27:03 -0500
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: QEMM and DR-DOS
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:56 +1200, physmsa AT cantua DOT canterbury DOT ac DOT nz (Mr M S Aitchison) wrote:

> I appreciate that QEMM can do some sneaky things with moving bits of
> the operating system, and its doing so probably makes assumptions that
> aren't valid for DRDOS (e.g. the trick with buffers is probably
> rendered unneccessary or risky by DRDOS's own HIBUFFERS option).

> But can somebody at Caldera (or Quarterdeck) advise what is safe to do
> and what isn't?  In fact it would be really nice if those two companies
> got together and make sure the two products recognise each other and
> work well together?

 They already 'do' work well together.
I'm running OpenDos v7.01 and Qemm v7.5 with no problems at all.
Here's a copy of config.sys,

DEVICE=C:\QEMM\QEMM386.SYS RAM SH:N ARAM=CB80-CBFF R:1 ST:M S=FF00-FFFF UR=1M:80M
device=c:\qemm\dos-up.sys @c:\qemm\dos-up.dat
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:4 /SIZE=8880 C:\QEMM\QDPMI.SYS SWAPFILE=DPMI.SWP SWAPSIZE=1024
SHELL=C:\COMMAND.COM C:\ /E:512 /P
BREAK=ON
BUFFERS=30
FILES=50
FCBS=4,4
LASTDRIVE=Z
HISTORY=ON,256,ON
COUNTRY=1,,C:\OPENDOS\COUNTRY.SYS
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:2 /SIZE=20656 C:\OPENDOS\SETVER.EXE
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:2 /SIZE=32112 C:\LTNIDE.SYS /D:NWCD0005 /DMA 

--
Glenn McCorkle mailto:glennmcc AT cisnet DOT com
North Jackson, Ohio, USA
            Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS
   Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed.
                  http://www.naf.cz/arachne/
ave huge amounts
of memory in order to run 'properly'.

This simple batch file for Dos will simulate almost the same thing.
--begin copyfast.bat--
rem create the proper directories
md c:%2
md ramdrive:%2
rem copy files into memory
copy %1 ramdrive:%2
call some program
call another program
call yet a third program
rem resources are now available, copy files to disk
copy ramdrive:%2 c:%2
-end copyfast.bat--

command line input for this batch file is as follows:

fastcopy \doom2\*.* \doom2.new

 This batch file does everything that W95 does. Plus, it creates the
destination directory if it doesn't already exist.
 This very simple example of course has three major limitations.
1) ramdisk must have already been created,
2) total file size is limited by size of ramdisk,
3) enough XMS or EMS must be left available for the other
   programs.(if they need it).

----Here are the test results----------

--begin copyfast.bat--
rem create the proper directories
md c:%2
md g:%2
rem copy files into memory
copy %1 g:%2
rem call some program
rem call another program
rem call yet a third program
rem resources are now available, copy files to disk
copy g:%2 c:%2
--end copyfast.bat--

command line input,
copyfast \!\*.* \!test.fst

copy from c:\! to g:\!test.fst ----------- 12 sec.
copy from g:\!test.fst to c:\!test.fst --- 25 sec.
                               Total time =37 sec. (253 files. 7,797,279 bytes)
--begin copyslow.bat--
rem create the proper directory
md c:%2
rem copy files to disk
copy %1 %2
--end copyslow.bat--

command line input,
copyslow \!\*.* \!test.slo

Time to copy from c:\! to c:\!test.slo --- 31 sec. (253 files. 7,797,279 bytes)
------------end test results-------

 As you see, copyslow is faster than copyfast.
Just who does Microsoft think that they are fooling? Not me.
 We have all watched W95 (supposedly) copy tens of megs from CD to HD
in a matter of just a few seconds. I just copied, 7.4mb in only 12sec.
This test was for HD to HD.(CD to HD goes even faster). NOT!!
This is 'not' possible. It is beyond the physical capabilities of
magnetic media. Regardless of methode used, magnetic media can't
accept data at that speed.
 I understand that this is a very simplified explanation of W95.
But, it does show that W95 is 'not' faster. It is in reality, slower.
Micro$oft has fooled the user into thinking that it's faster by not
actually doing what you've told it to do, 'when' you tell it to do so.
(It waits until you're not watching. Then it does it).

 DOS however,
Does exactly what you tell it to do, exactly when you tell it to do so.

New slogan,
 Micro$oft's W95, The Great Procrastinator!

 Of course, these are just my observations. I might be full of it.

--
Glenn McCorkle mailto:glennmcc AT cisnet DOT com
North Jackson, Ohio, USA
            Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS
   Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed.
                  http://www.naf.cz/arachne/