liberato@dri.com (Jimmy Liberato) (06/24/91)
act@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Turner) writes: >4. You will not be able to use your 384 Kb on the 286 as this requires >EMM386.EXE to be loaded. >5. To quote Microsoft: > "UMA support for 80286 class machines is not supplied in MS-DOS 5.0. > The choice to use EMM386.EXE as the engine for using Upper Memory > Blocks has been motivated by two major factors. > 1. High Memory is available on both 80386 and 80286 machines. To > prevent having two drivers, one for each machine. > 2. Development research indicated that UMB savings on 80286 class > machines did not offset the memory costs of the UMB driver nor > development time. > MS-DOS 5.0 OEMs have shown interest in developing UMA capabilities > into their releases. OEMs do have options that were not addressed > by Microsft's project, options such as Hardware and Firmware > solutions." Does this mean that all those 286 systems of recent vintage with the Chips & Technologies memory control chipset are out of luck? Why would an XMS driver for the upper memory area on a 286 C&T system have more "memory costs" than EMM386 on a 386 system? In any case, I would at least be able to use ~64K of the above memtioned 384K (assuming it was extended and not dedicated shadow ram) as HMA, is that correct? Can anyone with MSDOS 5.0 and a 286 class machine elaborate on the above quotes from Microsoft? -- Jimmy Liberato liberato@dri.com ...uunet!drivax!liberato