mikew@charm.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) (01/22/91)
In article <4491@mindlink.UUCP>, a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) writes: |> |> From recent responses, it is apparent that there is some confusion about |> the problem which is being experienced. The basic problem is as follows: |> |> On some machines, but not all, tasks running in 386 enhanced mode are much |> slower than in standard mode. This can be seen by using the computational |> index from the Norton Utilities in both standard mode and 386 enhanced mode. |> It can also be seen for some programs such as the Microsoft Flight simulator, |> which become extremely sluggish in 386 enhanced mode but are ok in standard |> mode. ... |> I have the problem on a 16 MHz 386 (not a 386 SX). I wonder if the |> problem is because my memory above 1 megabyte is not on the motherboard, but is |> on a memory card on the bus which can only be accessed at bus speed. My |> hypothesis is that when run in standard mode, Windows runs mainly in the 1 |> megabyte of easily accessible memory on the motherboard, but when I ask for |> enhanced mode much more use is made of the memory which can only be accessed |> through the bus. Would people who have the problem please mail me |> information on whether their memory is all on the motherboard, or whether part |> is accessible only through the bus. Bruce, after months of enduring countless (and incorrect) explanations of multitaksing in 386 mode as the cause of this problem, I think that you may have finally found the REAL cause: >>> AT-bus memory! <<<< Here's the story: About a year ago, I was running Windows/386 2.11 with 2 MB of memory on the motherboard of my SX machine. I had no problems running DOS apps quickly (as long as I ran them full screen), except that with only 2 megs I could only run one of them at a time. (Windows veterans will recall that Win 2 did not implement swap space.) So, I bought a BocaRAM AT + card with 2 MB of memory, figured out how to run it at 0 wait states, and everything ran fine. As I recall, DOS apps ran as fast as they always had. Then came along Windows 3. After I installed it, I could run as many DOS apps as I wanted, but they ALL ran *very* slowly--too slow, in fact, to be useful. I tried running them in exclusive mode, full screen, tweaking this, and tweaking that, but DOS apps were still too slow t use. The only solution was to fall back to Standard Mode, where I've been ever since. But recall that I added 2 megs before I every installed Win 3--so I've never run Win3 on my bare-bones 2 MB machine. Would that make a difference? As it turns out, it makes all the difference in the world. I left the actual figures at home, but here are the results of running SI with and without the memory: 2 MB of memory on motherboard, only 386 Mode Standard Mode Full Screen 15.6 16.8 2 MB of memory on motherboard + 2 MB in a slot 386 Mode Standard Mode Full Screen 4.6 16.8 Windowed 3.0 n/a hDC App's memory viewer showed that the Windows program took twice as much base memory (that's twice as much of the 2MB on the motherboard) when I have 4 MB as when I have 2 MB. So it seems that by the time I get around to opening a DOS window, Windows has already gobbled up the fast 2 MB on the motherboard, and all I can get is the slower 2 MB of memory (as Bruce theorized). Whew. It's a relief to finally (believe that I) know the cause to the problem. Now I wish I had a solution! My guess is that this doesn't happen in Standard mode because Windows swaps its lower portion (the part in the base 640K) out to make room for the DOS window, whereas in 386 Mode, Windows uses the remapping ability of the 386 to make the DOS window *think* it's running in the lower 640K. Can anyone verify the above? If this turns out to be true, I congratulate Bruce for being the first person to suggest an explanation for this 8-month-old problem!!! ________________________________________________________________________ Michael B. Williams \ 1-2-3-4, KICK THE LAWSUITS OUT THE DOOR MIT NE43-532 \ 5-6-7-8, INNOVATE DON'T LITIGATE Laboratory for Computer Science \ 9-A-B-C, INTERFACES SHOULD BE FREE 545 Technology Square \ D-E-F-0, LOOK AND FEEL HAS GOT TO GO! Cambridge, MA 02139 -------------------------------------- (617) 253-5983 Internet: mikew@athena.mit.edu CompuServe: 73667,3264
brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan21.211522.18732@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mikew@charm.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) writes: >wish I had a solution! My guess is that this doesn't happen in Standard mode >because Windows swaps its lower portion (the part in the base 640K) out to make >room for the DOS window, whereas in 386 Mode, Windows uses the remapping >ability of the 386 to make the DOS window *think* it's running in the lower 640K. > >Can anyone verify the above? If this turns out to be true, I congratulate Bruce for >being the first person to suggest an explanation for this 8-month-old problem!!! Yes, this is true. Interesting to see that nobody noticed the sluggish performance of Windows applications on such machines, as they suffer from the same problem, both in standard and in exhanced mode. Marc-Michael Brandis Computer Systems Laboratory, ETH-Zentrum (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland email: brandis@inf.ethz.ch
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (01/23/91)
In article <1991Jan21.211522.18732@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mikew@charm.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) writes: >In article <4491@mindlink.UUCP>, a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) writes: >|> >|> I have the problem on a 16 MHz 386 (not a 386 SX). I wonder if the >|> problem is because my memory above 1 megabyte is not on the motherboard, but is >|> on a memory card on the bus which can only be accessed at bus speed. My >|> hypothesis is that when run in standard mode, Windows runs mainly in the 1 >|> megabyte of easily accessible memory on the motherboard, but when I ask for [...] >Bruce, after months of enduring countless (and incorrect) explanations of >multitaksing in 386 mode as the cause of this problem, I think that you may >have finally found the REAL cause: >>> AT-bus memory! <<<< > [...] I have a 386dx/25 with 8M of memory on the motherboard. Outside of windows, Norton SI says 25.8 CPU index and 11.1 disk index. In a DOS window I get 24.7 CPU and 9.8 DISK. It appears that on my system, there is not much performance hit. Now programs that do graphics in a DOS window ARE noticeably slower, but this makes sense. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
press@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Barry Press) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan22.211751.10728@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >I have a 386dx/25 with 8M of memory on the motherboard. Outside of windows, >Norton SI says 25.8 CPU index and 11.1 disk index. In a DOS window I get >24.7 CPU and 9.8 DISK. It appears that on my system, there is not much >performance hit. Some rigor might be missing from all this -- I noticed last night that on a 486/25 which usually reports about 54 Norton SI, I got 304 (!!) in a DOS window. Not at all clear what the interactions between Norton and the Windows pre-emptive DOS scheduler are, for instance, and so I'd be real careful trying to interpret what people are seeing trying to benchmark running DOS under Windows. -- Barry Press Internet: press@venice.sedd.trw.com
sisu@ux1.lbl.gov (judy stirkkinen) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan22.211751.10728@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >In article <1991Jan21.211522.18732@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mikew@charm.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) writes: >>In article <4491@mindlink.UUCP>, a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) writes: [original deleted] > >I have a 386dx/25 with 8M of memory on the motherboard. Outside of windows, >Norton SI says 25.8 CPU index and 11.1 disk index. In a DOS window I get >24.7 CPU and 9.8 DISK. It appears that on my system, there is not much >performance hit. > >Now programs that do graphics in a DOS window ARE noticeably slower, but this >makes sense. > Uhhh.....graphics in a Dos window? I didn't think windows allowed that! (at least, *I* havn't been able to get anything hi-rez running, and the techs at Microsoft said: "It can't be done") Unless you're talking cga graphics? sheesh! -Rob rob@cad4.lbl.gov
mmshah@athena.mit.edu (Milan M Shah) (01/24/91)
Re: graphics in a window. It can be done. If you are running windows in graphics mode a, then one can do graphics in a dos window of mode less than a. I run in 800x600 mode, and I can play chess master 2100 in EGA and VGA modes in a window (sort of, no mouse) But the graphics work. Discovered it by accident. Milan .
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (01/25/91)
In article <1991Jan24.034807.1736@athena.mit.edu> mmshah@athena.mit.edu (Milan M Shah) writes: >Re: graphics in a window. > >It can be done. If you are running windows in graphics mode a, then one >can do graphics in a dos window of mode less than a. I run in 800x600 mode, >and I can play chess master 2100 in EGA and VGA modes in a window (sort of, >no mouse) But the graphics work. >Milan With a gool 'ol Herc, DOS programs doing graphics can continue to run in a window as well. The speed hit isn't that bad--I've used FltSim 4 in a window on my 386sx and, while not as crisp as full screen, is still usable. Just watch out for crashing the plane while switching to something else! Aaron Wallace
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (01/29/91)
In article <9210@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sisu@ux1.lbl.gov (judy stirkkinen) writes: >In article <1991Jan22.211751.10728@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >>In article <1991Jan21.211522.18732@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mikew@charm.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) writes: >>>In article <4491@mindlink.UUCP>, a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) writes: > >[original deleted] >> >>Now programs that do graphics in a DOS window ARE noticeably slower, but this >>makes sense. >> >Uhhh.....graphics in a Dos window? I didn't think windows allowed that! (at >least, *I* havn't been able to get anything hi-rez running, and the techs at >Microsoft said: "It can't be done") Unless you're talking cga graphics? >sheesh! > Bingo! Sheesh yourself. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (03/19/91)
From article <1991Mar19.015532.26957@d.cs.okstate.edu>, by ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG): [stuff deleted regarding not able to get noninterlaced mode] Well, the magic phrase is "vmode 65m"! I have to run that program with that parameter, and all the 1024x768 that was previous interlaced now goes into noninterlaced mode. Thanks to A.M. for that very speedy email respone. Noninterlaced is great. I mean, the Daewood interlaced monitor previously mentioned was ok (no flicker), but noninterlaced is GREAT! I guess some many netters (recommanding noninterlaced) couldn't be wrong. I even went ahead and put on "weave" wallpaper in Windows 3.0, no flicker I can detect, and all the pixels looked solidly anchored to the screen. As for the Swan VGA 15 monitor (again, color noninterlaced 1024x768 15" $599 direct from Swan Computer), I cannot make much quality judgement since this is the first PC noninterlaced monitor I looked at. Personally, I have changed my decision from "maybe" to "keep it" (they have 30-day money-back guarantee). I like the flat-screen and slightly "bigger" picture. Only concern I have is that somebody said that they got a 14" noninterlaced 1024x768 for under $400. If the picture quality is as good as the Swan VGA 15, then I feel pretty stupid paying $200 for an extra 0.8" wider diagonal measurement. But then again that person did not say that the under-$400 monitor is flat-screen. Also, there is the Samsung 17" 1024x768 noninterlaced for $899 from USA-FLEX. Minutes before I ordered the Swan, I called around looking for the Goldstar 16" ($623, interlaced) and the Samsung. USA-FLEX said they don't have stock, neither does all the mail-order shops I called. I even call Goldstar, they gave me the runaround. I finally gave up and called Swan. Usually, it takes me a month to invastigate and decide on a $600 purchase. But I was tire and my old standard VGA was flaking in and out (one of the color gun going on and off at random moments), and Swan Computer published (and I comfirmed with the salesperson on phone) that they have 30-day money-back guarantee on Swan brand products (but not on non-Swan brand), so I pull out the old Visa and chaaaaaarged! Anybody like to change my mind? (I still got 29 days left to return).