vandys@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Andrew Valencia(Seattle)) (12/01/88)
Perhaps you could make this query in comp.sys.ibm.pc--there are quite a few PC people of all technical levels there. I certainly don't want comp.os.misc to be flooded with PC-specific information--there's too much of it and too few of us! :-). Andy
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (12/03/88)
In article <12706@steinmetz.ge.com>, dixon@sagittarius.steinmetz (walt dixon) writes: }The basic problem that the orignal requestor faces is one of memory }fragmentation. The transient part of command.com processes batch files. }It must be loaded into memory. In bringing this transient code into }memory, command.com fragments the available memory. The transient part does not actually use up a memory block! That's how it can be overwritten. COMMAND.COM requests a sufficiently large memory block, and then deallocates the block. The real problem is the 48- to 96-byte memory block used to store the information needed to process a batch file. This is what creates the fragmentation. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I |Ducharm's Axiom: If you view your problem closely enough claimed something?| you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.