colfelt@news.colorado.edu (COLFELT ANDREW BRINTON W) (05/22/91)
Ok, folks, here's the PRIMARY reason people have problems with Windows 3.0:
TOO LITTLE MEMORY.
"Great, what the gingersnatch do I do now?!"
If you start windows with "win" and you come up in Standard or Real
mode, Windows has decided that there isn't enough memory to make efficient
use of the 386 Enhanced Mode. My experience has been that 2Mb is the MINIMUM
necessary to operate successfully MOST OF THE TIME in Enhanced mode. There
are ways of forcing Enh. Mode ("win /3"), but there will be some budget-cuts
to be made elsewhere...
"But I HAVE 2Mb!"
True though this may be, the allocation of said memory may be suspect.
Some tried and true tips (for 2Mb systems; larger systems have more
room to work with):
1. Buffers = 10; Files = 30
2. HIMEM.SYS is essential! EMM386.SYS values are inversely
proportional to your chances of attaining the coveted 386Enh.
(RTM, p.594)
2. device=c:\windows\SmardtDrv.SYS [~512 to 768] [~128 to 256]
3. don't use FASTOPEN
4. don't use unneccessary TSRs
5. BMP Wallpaper, while aesthetically pleasing, is non-functional,
and will occupy precious memory.
Don't worry about Buffers=10 and no FASTOPEN; SmartDrv is SMART! :-)
(The REAL Catch-All for Windows problems, as you've guessed by now, is
RAM RAM RAM! Buy all that will fit inside the box; starve yourself for
a month if you have to! A 2Mb system is, in my opinion, the absolute
MINIMUM memory requirement for Windows, despite what the dealers will tell
you, and despite the specs listed on the box the program came in! A
Permanent Swapfile will also do you wonders, although we all cringe at the
thought of stagnant disk space.)
I hope this helps those who are burning to know why their systems are not
performing the way they're expected; this should help with MOST problems.
Andrew
colfelt@tramp.colorado.edudana@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel) (05/23/91)
In article <colfelt.674898394@tramp.Colorado.EDU> colfelt@tramp.Colorado.EDU writes: > >Don't worry about Buffers=10 and no FASTOPEN; SmartDrv is SMART! :-) > I haven't had success with SmartDrv. I was having trouble with W4W hanging when I clicked FILE and PageMaker 4.0 returning me to a DOS prompt frequently. Removing SMARTDRV solved the problem. On a recent phone call with MS Support: "Don't run SMARTDRV unless you absolutely have to, it has caused some mysterious problems in the past." I use 386MAX 5.0 as a high memory manager. It loads the network and mouse software into the 640-1000K region. When I installed it, it kept hanging. The tech support person said, "Is SMARTDRV running. I said "No" and he said "Good" Its not a real cache anyway." He then went on to say I should use a cache similar to PC-Tools or the one that Qualitas offers. (Qualitas distributes 386MAX). I have 4MB RAM on this box and would definitely agree: Windows with less than two meg isn't worth installing. --- Dan Aksel
colfelt@news.colorado.edu (COLFELT ANDREW BRINTON W) (05/23/91)
dana@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel) writes: >In article <colfelt.674898394@tramp.Colorado.EDU> colfelt@tramp.Colorado.EDU >writes: >> >>Don't worry about Buffers=10 and no FASTOPEN; SmartDrv is SMART! :-) >> >I haven't had success with SmartDrv. I was having trouble with W4W hanging >when >I clicked FILE and PageMaker 4.0 returning me to a DOS prompt frequently. >Removing SMARTDRV solved the problem. >On a recent phone call with MS Support: "Don't run SMARTDRV unless you >absolutely have to, it has caused some mysterious problems in the past." Was this because you have a unique hard drive? What did they say about using other caches with windows? I recall them saying something about SmartDrv being great because it "cooperates with windows." As far as I can tell, this cooperation is manifest in the ability of Windows to modulate the size of the cache "as necessary," but the modulation sucks-- you must specify a minimum value for cache size, else when you run Windows in 386Enh., the cache is reduced to 0 bytes and never incerases. That is, my system is VERY slow when I allow the reduction, and no noticeable change when I force a minimum value. >I use 386MAX 5.0 as a high memory manager. It loads the network and mouse >software into the 640-1000K region. When I installed it, it kept hanging. The Should I be using something to manage this never-never land of memory or is HIMEM.SYS utilizing the 640K-1000K space? If I'm wasting this space as it is now, I'd sure like some advice here! (I have 2Mb and do quite nicely, although I've never experienced the 4Mb advantage.) >tech support person said, "Is SMARTDRV running. I said "No" and he said "Good" >Its not a real cache anyway." He then went on to say I should use a cache >similar to PC-Tools or the one that Qualitas offers. (Qualitas distributes >386MAX). How about the Norton-Cache that comes with Norton 5.0? I trust Norton more that Central Point when it comes to nitty-gritty stuff. If in fact the utility of SmartDrv is questionable, and if indeed the "cooperation" is a joke, then I'm all ready to switch! Bring on the Cache Brigade! Also, what's the low-down on QEMM vs. 386MAX, and didn't I hear/read something somewhere about 386MAX-Windows clashes, or was that the previous version? QEMM used to clash, but the new version is kosher w/ Windows. Andrew colfelt@tramp.colorado.edu
john@utafll.uta.edu (John Baima) (05/23/91)
I've had more success with SmartDrv than the PC-TOOLS disk cache. I switched to PC-TOOLS a few weeks ago (and made some other changes at the same time) and Windows went *BOOM* quite a lot. Now it's only sometimes :-) Tralala *BOOM* di eh, I'm using Windows, today . . . (Where is OS/2 2.0????) -- John Baima john@utafll.uta.edu
colfelt@news.colorado.edu (COLFELT ANDREW BRINTON W) (05/23/91)
john@utafll.uta.edu (John Baima) writes: >I've had more success with SmartDrv than the PC-TOOLS disk cache. I >switched to PC-TOOLS a few weeks ago (and made some other changes at >the same time) and Windows went *BOOM* quite a lot. Now it's only >sometimes :-) In response to my own question regarding the Norton Cache vs. SmartDrv, I did some experimenting. I took the ole stopwatch and keen eyeball to starting Windows. (What prompted this was a temporary Windows spasm- DOS programs that ALWAYS run full screen with no problem wouldn't load?! Hard drive light just stayed on and no response from any keys (my 'crucial test' indicated a fatality; the NUMLOCK light response!) so I thought I'd try using the Norton Cache instead of SmartDrv, which seemed to be the cause of this problem the other day...a VERY random spasm). ---Pause for a tangent--- Incidentally, for those of you curious about the small and inconsequential, though sometimes useful: you can tell if Windows is going to come up in Enhanced mode or Real mode BEFORE it comes up! That is, if you desire Enhanced mode but are unsure whether or not you'll get it because of memory dispute, the secret message to look for is on the screen between Windows 3.0 Logo and the desktop (Wallpaper, whatever you see when running windows). -If the logo blanks out and the screen goes totally blank, and then you see the desktop, you'll be in Real mode. -If the logo blanks out and then a cursor flashes in the Upper left corner on an otherwise blank screen, and then you see the desktop, you'll be in enhanced mode! So, if you're fooling around and experimenting with different config's, timing the loading process, whatever, and you don't see the cursor, don't waste your time waiting to see the final result; hit Crtl-C and try another config. ---End of tangent--- Anyway, I tried using the Norton Cache but couldn't figure out how to specify memory values, so it took all it could and this put me in Real mode. I 'lost' the manual... My suspiscion is that the Norton Cache will do the same thing as the PCTools cache did to you, though I can't be sure for sure. I don't remember who posted the reply before yours, but he said that the Microsoft help line told him that SmartDrv isn't a real cache and that a cache of the PCTools or Qualitas variety would be better. Why isn't SmartDrv a real cache? You're proof that the PCTools solution is a bad one...
larsen@OES.ORST.EDU (Scott Larsen) (05/23/91)
Try hyperdisk v4.21 as a replacement for smartdrv. It can relinquish memory to windows like smartdrv and is MUCH faster. It is available on simtel20 -- pd1:<msdos.dskutl>hydk421.zip Scott Larsen larsen@darkstar.cas.orst.edu UUCP: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!larsen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny." - Lazarus Long
sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) (05/23/91)
In article <colfelt.674956491@tramp.Colorado.EDU> colfelt@tramp.Colorado.EDU writes: >dana@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel) writes: >>[MicroSoft] tech support person said, "Is SMARTDRV running. >>I said "No" and he said "Good" >>Its not a real cache anyway." He then went on to say I should use a cache >>similar to PC-Tools or the one that Qualitas offers. (Qualitas distributes >>386MAX). > >How about the Norton-Cache that comes with Norton 5.0? I trust Norton more >that Central Point when it comes to nitty-gritty stuff. If in fact the >utility of SmartDrv is questionable, and if indeed the "cooperation" is >a joke, then I'm all ready to switch! Bring on the Cache Brigade! After reading Appendix D in the Windows User's Guide, I was under the impression that the only time windows did any cache modulation with Smart Drive was when you are running in Real Mode and have Smart Drive installed in Expanded (does anyone still use this stuff?) Memory. p588 says, "With an extended memory cache, when Windows starts in standard mode or 386 enhanced mode, it immediately reduces SMARTDrive's cache to the minimum size." The rest of the text gives no indication that Windows ever gives memory back to Smart Drive until you exit windows. If this is the case, then there isn't much advantage to using Smart Drive except that you have a bigger disk cache when you're not running windows. If you use windows almost exclusively, it seems you could use a different, and probably more reliable disk cache. Just set the cache size to whatever you currently have defined as your minimum cache size. I'm sure if I'm wrong I'll get corrected, but the above is how I read the manual. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Strazdus | sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com | Insert your favorite .sig here.
colfelt@news.colorado.edu (COLFELT ANDREW BRINTON W) (05/24/91)
Dan Askel (dana@hardy.ssd.csd.harris.com) writes:
"
I have the Qualitas (386MAX), PC-Tools, SMARTDRV and Norton caches on various
boxes around the building. My personal experience is limitted to SMARTDRV which
is currently removed. Other people in the industry seem to think the PC-Tools
is the best all around compromise. The fundamental reason is the least amount
of overhead for the function you get. Again, I have no experience with this but
will be attempting to use it next week. Although Norton utilities has a cache
with it I've yet to here of anyone actually using it.
HIMEM.SYS may use the "lost" 384K of dos memory for Windows but it definitely
doesn't load my TSRs there. Boot your system but before you get into Windows,
run the Norton/PC-Tools memory utilities to show you what is loaded where. I
believe you'll find all your "goodies" are still in 0-640K.
Happy Caching....
"
You don't have problems crashing with the PCTools cache? You removed SmartDrv
for what reason and you're using what now? If you're not using anything
I should think you're experiencing a 30% increase in loading time/swapping
time!
Andrew
colfelt@tramp.colorado.educhchoi@eng.auburn.edu (Cheong Hyeon Choi) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.081108.26637@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> larsen@OES.ORST.EDU (Scott Larsen) writes: >Try hyperdisk v4.21 as a replacement for smartdrv. It can relinquish >memory to windows like smartdrv and is MUCH faster. > >It is available on simtel20 -- pd1:<msdos.dskutl>hydk421.zip > Hi. I've used hyperdisk for window 3.0 setting "write-back without delay". When I was trying to run a shareware, my system was hang up. I rebooted system again and then run window3.0. But half of "..GRP" files was broken. So I made broken .GRP files again taking much tiring time. At that time, I had no idea on those broken files. I got the same problem two times more. I took hyperdisk from config.sys and switch to smartdrv. I wanted to know if those problems occured or not under smartdrv. No problem!! I can't make sure that this means smartdrv.sys is safer that hyperdisk. But I don't want to use hyperdisk any more because making whole GRP files again made me crazy. Thanks. Choi
larsen@OES.ORST.EDU (Scott Larsen) (05/24/91)
In article <chchoi.910523170527@banana.eng.auburn.edu> chchoi@eng.auburn.edu (Cheong Hyeon Choi) writes: > Hi. I've used hyperdisk for window 3.0 setting "write-back without delay". >When I was trying to run a shareware, my system was hang up. I rebooted >system again and then run window3.0. But half of "..GRP" files was broken. >So I made broken .GRP files again taking much tiring time. At that time, >I had no idea on those broken files. I got the same problem two times more. >I took hyperdisk from config.sys and switch to smartdrv. I wanted to know if >those problems occured or not under smartdrv. No problem!! >I can't make sure that this means smartdrv.sys is safer that hyperdisk. >But I don't want to use hyperdisk any more because making whole GRP files again >made me crazy. This is strange. I've never had hyperdisk lock up on me. What was the program that you were trying to run when it kept hanging up? Scott Larsen larsen@oes.orst.edu UUCP: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!larsen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny." - Lazarus Long
drahnier@gmdtub (Reinhard Rasche) (05/24/91)
" Hi. I've used hyperdisk for window 3.0 setting "write-back without delay". When I was trying to run a shareware, my system was hang up. I rebooted system again and then run window3.0. But half of "..GRP" files was broken. So I made broken .GRP files again taking much tiring time. At that time, I had no idea on those broken files. I got the same problem two times more. I took hyperdisk from config.sys and switch to smartdrv. I wanted to know if those problems occured or not under smartdrv. No problem!! I can't make sure that this means smartdrv.sys is safer that hyperdisk. But I don't want to use hyperdisk any more because making whole GRP files again made me crazy. " I experienced exactely the same problem with the hyperdisk version that can be found at cica. After trying three or four times I switched back to smartdrive. drahnier@gmdtub -- /* * drahnier@gmdtub.UUCP * ...!uunet!unido!gmdtub!drahnier * (reinhard rasche) */
ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gerald Greenberg) (05/24/91)
In article <4389@inews.intel.com> sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes: >In article <colfelt.674956491@tramp.Colorado.EDU> colfelt@tramp.Colorado.EDU writes: >>dana@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel) writes: [someone says] >>>Its not a real cache anyway." He then went on to say I should use a cache >>>similar to PC-Tools or the one that Qualitas offers. (Qualitas distributes >>>386MAX). >> >>How about the Norton-Cache that comes with Norton 5.0? I trust Norton more >>that Central Point when it comes to nitty-gritty stuff. If in fact the >>utility of SmartDrv is questionable, and if indeed the "cooperation" is >>a joke, then I'm all ready to switch! Bring on the Cache Brigade! >After reading Appendix D in the Windows User's Guide, I was under the >impression that the only time windows did any cache modulation with >Smart Drive was when you are running in Real Mode and have Smart Drive >installed in Expanded (does anyone still use this stuff?) Memory. > >p588 says, "With an extended memory cache, when Windows starts in >standard mode or 386 enhanced mode, it immediately reduces SMARTDrive's >cache to the minimum size." > >The rest of the text gives no indication that Windows ever gives memory >back to Smart Drive until you exit windows. If this is the case, then >there isn't much advantage to using Smart Drive except that you have a >bigger disk cache when you're not running windows. If you use windows >almost exclusively, it seems you could use a different, and probably >more reliable disk cache. Just set the cache size to whatever you >currently have defined as your minimum cache size. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Steve Strazdus | sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com | Insert your favorite .sig here. I thought I'd get in on this discussion, too. I could have chosen any of the messages to reply to, but this is the one I happen to be reading when I decided to relate my story. I, too, had problems with Smartdrive. I liked the idea of being able to have a bigger cache outside of Windows, but unfortunately Smartdrive just kept trashing my drive. I've just finished trying Hyperdisk421 (or is it Hyperdrive?), which is supposed to have the same capabilities as Smartdrive...unfortunately, it trashes my drive, too! Maybe I just cannot use one of these caches that will shrink under windows...I know I'm not going to spend $$$ for PCKwik's cache unless I know it won't trash my drive. I just recently got a copy of PC-Tools v.6. I didn't really get it for the cache, since I figured Smartdrive would work...also, I wanted the flexible cache. Since it started to look like a flexible cache wouldn't work, however, I thought I'd give the pc-tools cache a try. I came up with a different problem, which maybe someone out there can answer: When pc-tools cache starts to run, I get an error message which states something like "boot sector drive contradicts BIOS" and then it asks me to continue. So far I've been too chicken to continue (tired of rebuilding my drive). Does anybody know what all this means? Perhaps what I have to do is use the PC-Tools formatter to reformat my drive? Maybe some day I'll have a cache that works! It would be nice! --Gerry ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu
vsarkela@csc.fi (05/26/91)
In article <1991May24.154429.2302@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gerald Greenberg) writes: >I, too, had problems with Smartdrive. I liked the idea of being >able to have a bigger cache outside of Windows, but >unfortunately Smartdrive just kept trashing my drive. I've >just finished trying Hyperdisk421 (or is it Hyperdrive?), >which is supposed to have the same capabilities as >Smartdrive...unfortunately, it trashes my drive, too! Maybe I >just cannot use one of these caches that will shrink under >windows...I know I'm not going to spend $$$ for PCKwik's cache >unless I know it won't trash my drive. I have been using PC Kwik Power Pack version 2 by Multisoft with Win3 and it works fine. My configuration is 20 MHz 386 8 MB RAM, MS-DOS 3.3 + QEMM 5.11, 105 MB IDE drive. Nice thing with PC-Kwik is that it loads itself into upper memory, thus saving precious conventional memory for windows. I haven't had any problems with Smartdrive so you should 1. check that your hard disk is partitioned with MS-DOS's Fdisk (3.3 or 4.01) 2. try inserting EMMExclude=A000-EFFF VirtualHDIrq=false in the 386Enh section of your SYSTEM.INI file >I just recently got a copy of PC-Tools v.6. I >didn't really get it for the cache, since I figured Smartdrive >would work...also, I wanted the flexible cache. Since it >started to look like a flexible cache wouldn't work, however, >I thought I'd give the pc-tools cache a try. I came up with a >different problem, which maybe someone out there can answer: >When pc-tools cache starts to run, I get an error message >which states something like "boot sector drive contradicts >BIOS" and then it asks me to continue. So far I've been too >chicken to continue (tired of rebuilding my drive). Does >anybody know what all this means? Perhaps what I have to do >is use the PC-Tools formatter to reformat my drive? PC-Tools is just saying that information in BIOS's battery backup CMOS ram is not same as information in boot sector of disk about cylinders, heads and sectors/track. You can safely continue. PC-Kwik even lets you select which information to use, it may have some impact on the performance of the cache. BTW PC-Tools' PC-Cache is simpler version of Super PC-Kwik-cache, which Central Point licensed from Multisoft. And if anything else doesn't help, you should partition your hard disk with fdisk that came with MS-DOS... >Maybe some day I'll have a cache that works! It would be >nice! >--Gerry >ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu > Vesa Sarkela Keskuslaboratorio Oy vsarkela@csc.fi Finnish Pulp & Paper Research Institute
alan@oetl1.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Alan Strassberg) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May26.125729.1@csc.fi> vsarkela@csc.fi writes: [..] >I have been using PC Kwik Power Pack version 2 by Multisoft with Win3 >and it works fine. My configuration is 20 MHz 386 8 MB RAM, >MS-DOS 3.3 + QEMM 5.11, 105 MB IDE drive. I have a fax from Multisoft Corp. (PC-Kwik) that says: (slightly shortened, dated 4/12/91) ___________________________________________________________________________ Multisoft Compatibility Information Patch for QEMM 5.0 - 5.12 In certain cases, when QEMM is asked to resize memory, the memory allocation fails. This may occur in expanded or xms memory. When the lending feature of Super PC-Kwik is used, this memory resizing is used extensively. Symptoms include machine rebooting, or system hanging. QuarterDeck has provided the following patch to QEMM to resolve the problem. The patch has solved problems with WordPerfect 5.1 and Microsoft Word 5.5 and may be effective on other problems with these symptoms. This patch alters the QEMM file. Please apply this patch only on a copy of the original file. [other stuff deleted]. Patch for QEMM v5.10, 5.11, 5.12 1) Change to QEMM directory: CD \QEMM 2) Type: DIR QEMM386.SYS 3) If the time of the file is 5:10am, 5:11am or 5:12am continue, otherwise this is not the correct version. Stop and check which version you have. 4) Type: COPY QEMM386.SYS QEMMOLD.SYS 5) Type DEBUG QEMM386.SYS 6) Debug prompt is '-', Type: S 100 L F000 75 6 1 0E 7) You should get a segment:offset returned as XXXX:YYYY 8) At the Debug prompt, type: E XXXX:YYYY EB 9) Type: W 10) You should see a message, n number of bytes written. 11) Type: Q 12) You should be back at DOS. Reboot the machine. 13) If there are problems, restore the original file by changing to the QEMM directory then type: COPY QEMMOLD.SYS QEMM386.SYS . 6) Debug prompt is '-', Type: S 100 L F000 75 6 1 0E Patch for QEMM 5.0 (only changes noted) 3) time should be 5:00am 6) Debug prompt is '-', Type: S 100 L F000 75 7 1 0E ___________________________________________________________________________ This patch fixed system crashes under Win3/QEMM/PC-Kwik running WordPerfect for us. Also PC-Kwik is an excellent product IMHO ! alan -- Alan Strassberg alan@oetl1.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (408) 425-6139 alan@oetl.UUCP
schaller@handel.cs.colostate.edu (kevin schaller) (06/01/91)
>Try hyperdisk v4.21 as a replacement for smartdrv. It can relinquish >memory to windows like smartdrv and is MUCH faster. > >It is available on simtel20 -- pd1:<msdos.dskutl>hydk421.zip Is this version of hyperdisk available anywhere else? Due to reorganzition problems with our Computer Science machines I temporarily cannot connect to SIMTEL. Please e-mail me so as not to waste space here. Thanks in advance! --Kevin +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kevin Schaller | Colorado State University | | schaller@handel.cs.colostate.edu | Fort Collins, Colorado | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+