pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (08/27/88)
I've just finished playing with DesqView and 386-to-the-Max. [DesqView is
a multitasker; 386max emulates EEMS memory, and makes high DOS memory
(above the video area) available for program use, thus freeing up more of
the base 640K for other stuff.]
One of the painful things about a setup like this is that there are various
ROM BIOSes mapped into the high address space. These not only take up
room that I wish was available for programs or Desqview or an EMS page
frame, but they fragment what address space *is* available. For example,
on the machine I'm playing with, the high address space is mapped like this:
A000-BFFF = EGA Video
C000-C3FF = ROM
C800-CBFF or CC00-CFFF = Hard Disk ROM BIOS
E000-E3FF = ROM BIOS #1
F000-FFFF = ROM BIOS #2
As you can see, the available address spaces are cut into 3 different small
chunks: 16-32K from C400 to the HD BIOS, 64-80K from there to the first
ROM BIOS, and 48K from there to the second ROM BIOS.
What I have learned is that much of this ROM is not needed most of the time,
and 386max can eliminate it from the address space.
C000-C3FF on my machine is the BIOS for my Vega Deluxe EGA card (I looked
at it with debug). This is needed.
The ROM BIOS at E000 is a spare EGA BIOS that seems to be part of my AMI
BIOS. It is not used, and can be mapped out without a hitch.
I figured the hard disk BIOS was necessary. It isn't, for the most part.
You need it to set up your drives the first time (the 'ol "go into debug
and g=c800:5" trick). It is also used while the machine is booting, to
verify drive parameters. But once the machine is loading config.sys, it
is not used! So 386max can map that out too. I tried this extensively, and
it works. I talked to Adaptec, and they think it should too, although
they want to do more research before they will officially stamp it as an
'approved by Adaptec' technique. Your mileage may vary on other controllers,
but I bet it will work just fine. Don't experiment with other controllers
unless you have a good backup! I'd be interested in hearing reports of
other controllers for which this works or doesn't work.
So, with two ROM's out of the way, I now have contiguous memory available
from C400-EFFF. That's 176K of contiguous RAM! Not bad. I think I *like*
this '386 business!
Pete
--
OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746larry@tapa.UUCP (Larry Pajakowski) (08/29/88)
In article <337@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >I've just finished playing with DesqView and 386-to-the-Max. [DesqView is >a multitasker; 386max emulates EEMS memory, and makes high DOS memory >(above the video area) available for program use, thus freeing up more of >the base 640K for other stuff.] Just a short mention of QEMM like DesqView also from Quaterdeck systems. We've been using it since August of last year and the latest releases also support a loadhi command which used address space above 640. You of course must have some extended memory for QEMM to map into the lower 1mb. If you can live with a CGA card you have a very big win in that you will have some 738k of contiguous memory for dos and applications. We do alot of database work and simply couldn't do without the extra memory. Mapmem or chkdsk shows some 660k available with QEMM only. Under DedqView I can make up to a 610k partition and still have most of the LAN softare up above 640k. Very nice.
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (08/30/88)
In article <588@tapa.UUCP> larry@tapa.UUCP (Larry Pajakowski) writes: >>[addendum to my article re: Desqview and 386 to the Max...] > >Just a short mention of QEMM like DesqView also from Quaterdeck systems. >We've been using it since August of last year and the latest releases also >support a loadhi command which used address space above 640. You of course >must have some extended memory for QEMM to map into the lower 1mb. > Quarterdeck (makers of Desqview and QEMM) are doing a pretty good job of keeping up with the Joneses (Qualitas, who make 386max). I guess I should have mentioned both in the same breath in my original article. Actually, I checked both out, side by side, in order to decide which is better. My conclusions: 1) Old versions of QEMM just don't make it, much of the time. If you have a copy older than 4.10, upgrade it. It will be well worth it! You'll get just about everything 386max gives you. 2) 386max is somewhat better than QEMM. It uses less of the 640K space. It is better at giving back your upper DOS memory. It has nice extra status reports to tell you what is happening with all of your RAM (where is ROM? what is my EMS RAM being used for? What is my upper DOS ram used for? How fast are the different memory chips I've got? Etc...). 3) Quarterdeck doesn't like Qualitas. They keep trying to make Desqview incompatible with 386max. F'rexample, if you don't have the latest 386max (2.62), it won't work with the Desqview extended memory driver (QEXT.SYS). Qualitas will send an upgrade for free. 4) Quarterdeck's technical support lines are so overloaded it is sick. 386max is much easier to get support for. For now, I'd get 386max. Quarterdeck may come out with a new killer version of Desqview/QEMM that does something 386max can't, in which case maybe it would be worth switching. Since the original cost of these things is about the same price as an upgrade of QEMM from Quarterdeck, it doesn't really matter! Enough (probably too much!) said. I'll shut up now :-) Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746