bei@halley.UUCP (Bob Izenberg) (08/06/90)
I got QEMM 386 yesterday (and found out that 5.0 will be superceded in two
weeks or so) and after configuring it, found that configuring QEMM to use
LOADHI locks out Windows 386 Enhanced mode. Has anyone gotten 386 enhanced
Windows to run under QEMM 5.0? Don't say RTFM, please, the Windows 3.0
manual has been loaned out.
Thanks!
-- Bob
--
Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc.
cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/06/90)
In article <938@halley.UUCP> bei@halley.UUCP (Bob Izenberg) writes: |I got QEMM 386 yesterday (and found out that 5.0 will be superceded in two |weeks or so) and after configuring it, found that configuring QEMM to use |LOADHI locks out Windows 386 Enhanced mode. Has anyone gotten 386 enhanced Sorry, you lose! Win3 requires DPMI support, a standard that is still under development. QD has been pushing a new version of QEMM that is compatible with Win3 but only in real mode (get real!) or standard mode. They do not appear to have Win3 386 mode support yet nor do they seem to be making any kind of schedule predictions. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
medici@dorm.rutgers.edu (Mark Medici) (08/07/90)
bei@halley.UUCP (Bob Izenberg) writes: >I got QEMM 386 yesterday (and found out that 5.0 will be superceded in two >weeks or so) and after configuring it, found that configuring QEMM to use >LOADHI locks out Windows 386 Enhanced mode. Has anyone gotten 386 enhanced >Windows to run under QEMM 5.0? Don't say RTFM, please, the Windows 3.0 >manual has been loaned out. MS-Windows 3.0 is not compatible with QEMM 5.0 in 386 Enhanced or 286 Standard mode. Page 542 of the MS-Windows 3 manual states that memory managers such as 386Max (Qualitas), CEMM (Compaq), and QEMM (Quarter- Deck) may only be used when Windows 3 is started in the REAL mode. The problem is, Win3 in Standard and Enhanced mode does its own memory management, which conflicts with other memory managers noted above. Also, as the above utils use 386 protected mode for thier operation, Win3 cannot get the exclusive use of the processor it requires. Forthcoming versions of QEMM and 386Max are supposed to alleviate this problem. QEMM should be out RSN (REAL SOON NOW), and reports say that 386Max should be out in September.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/07/90)
In article <Aug.6.17.36.10.1990.29219@dorm.rutgers.edu> medici@dorm.rutgers.edu (Mark Medici) writes: |Forthcoming versions of QEMM and 386Max are supposed to alleviate this |problem. QEMM should be out RSN (REAL SOON NOW), and reports say that |386Max should be out in September. BUT!!! The new version of QEMM DOES NOT support 386 mode, only standard mode. Barf. Is 386max any better? -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) (08/07/90)
In a recent article phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > >BUT!!! The new version of QEMM DOES NOT support [Win3] 386 mode, only standard >mode. Barf. > >Is 386max any better? No. The new 386^max (version 5) package includes a card which tells you (after you open the package) that it doesn't support WIN3 except in real (and maybe standard -- I'm not sure) mode, and that the next update (due RSN) will. They use that as an incentive to get you to return the registration card. I wouldn't be so concerned if I could use the EMM386.SYS driver packaged with Windows 3 without having it blow up as soon as some program asks for LIM memory. I don't even get far enough to start Windows itself...
pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (08/09/90)
> > BUT!!! The new version of QEMM DOES NOT support 386 mode, only standard > mode. Barf. > Then why do they bother to release a new QEMM ? That would be the same as the current one. Someone told me that the new QEMM is supposed to be able to run with Windows in 386 mode. But then, there's no way to verify this until the thing comes out on the market. Regards, ## Life is fast enough as it is ........ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------, ########################################### : E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, : Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) | Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__ ... also at: pnl@hpfipnl.HP.COM Singapore 0410. SPLAT !
laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) (08/10/90)
From article <18950003@hpfinote.HP.COM>, by pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim): >> >> BUT!!! The new version of QEMM DOES NOT support 386 mode, only standard >> mode. Barf. >> > Then why do they bother to release a new QEMM ? It's not as big an issue with 386 enhanced. 386 enhanced uses the virtual memory so that Windows swaps itself out when the computer runs out of conventional memory for the non-windows applications. Tom Laughner DOS Consultant/Analyst University of Notre Dame (219) 239-8270 TLAUGHNE@IRISHMVA
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/13/90)
In article <18950003@hpfinote.HP.COM> pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) writes: |> BUT!!! The new version of QEMM DOES NOT support 386 mode, only standard |> mode. Barf. |Then why do they bother to release a new QEMM ? That would be the same |as the current one. Nope, the current one is not compatible with standard mode, only real mode. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/13/90)
In article <331@news.nd.edu> laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) writes: |It's not as big an issue with 386 enhanced. 386 enhanced uses the It's still a big issue if you have big network drivers that you want to load in "high DOS" memory, a capability that died with Windows 3.0. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
pjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) (08/14/90)
In article <331@news.nd.edu> laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) writes:
=From article <18950003@hpfinote.HP.COM>, by pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim):
=>>
=>> BUT!!! The new version of QEMM DOES NOT support 386 mode, only standard
=>> mode. Barf.
=>>
=> Then why do they bother to release a new QEMM ?
=
=It's not as big an issue with 386 enhanced. 386 enhanced uses the
=virtual memory so that Windows swaps itself out when the computer runs
=out of conventional memory for the non-windows applications.
So are you saying that people who run enhanced mode in Windows but who
also need QEMM *should* get the 5.1 version?
Thanks,
Pete
--
Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) (08/14/90)
From article <1990Aug13.071621.21731@amd.com>, by phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai): > In article <18950003@hpfinote.HP.COM> pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) writes: > |> BUT!!! The new version of QEMM DOES NOT support 386 mode, only standard > |> mode. Barf. > |Then why do they bother to release a new QEMM ? That would be the same > |as the current one. > > Nope, the current one is not compatible with standard mode, only > real mode. > You do not need additional memory management for 386 enhanced. That's what HIMEM.SYS is. Windows in 386 enhanced does not have the 640k barrier. This means that if you have two MB of memory, this is contiguous memory...whether it's a Windows application or a non-Windows application. Tom Laughner DOS Consultant/Analyst University of Notre Dame (219) 273-1039 TLAUGHNE@IRISHMVA
jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Confusion Reigns) (08/14/90)
Has anyone tried using QRAM with 386Enh mode? If I run QD Manifest in a window that has some EMS, it tells me I should be using QRAM. The problem there is that I don't have QRAM... -- Jason Merrill jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/14/90)
In article <343@news.nd.edu> laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) writes: |You do not need additional memory management for 386 enhanced. That's Do you use any networks? -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Real Pacifists don't call the Police.
laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) (08/14/90)
From article <1990Aug14.015042.15881@amd.com>, by phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai): > In article <343@news.nd.edu> laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) writes: > |You do not need additional memory management for 386 enhanced. That's > > Do you use any networks? > Our next stage of testing is on networks. We run Vines and Netware here. So far we haven't had any problems with Netware 2.15C running applications like WordPerfect, dBase, or Lotus. We have some applications that are very memory intensive that we haven't tested yet. We haven't done any testing on Banyan, yet. Vines is so much more memory intensive, that if we don't have any problems on Vines, we're set. According to Microsoft, though, we shouldn't have any problems (notice we're testing their claims, first, BEFORE we implement...). Tom Laughner DOS Consultant/Analyst University of Notre Dame (219) 239-8270 TLAUGHNE@IRISHMVA
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/15/90)
In article <351@news.nd.edu> laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) writes: |Our next stage of testing is on networks. We run Vines and Netware |here. So far we haven't had any problems with Netware 2.15C running |applications like WordPerfect, dBase, or Lotus. We have some |applications that are very memory intensive that we haven't tested yet. |We haven't done any testing on Banyan, yet. Vines is so much more |memory intensive, that if we don't have any problems on Vines, we're |set. According to Microsoft, though, we shouldn't have any problems |(notice we're testing their claims, first, BEFORE we implement...). The question is not whether or not networks will work in Enhanced mode, the question is how much free memory does a DOS app get after you load a big network driver in config.sys? Before Win3, products like QEMM and 386Max could let you load a network driver in "high DOS" memory and still have over 600K free. Now, even the promised version of QEMM only works in STANDARD mode and if you want to run Enhanced, that network driver has to sit in your 640K. (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong.) 640K is no problem for a Win3 app since it can use extended memory but a DOS app is presumably still limited to 640K. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil I'm trying hard to visualize world peace. Did it work yet?
sam@hpspdra.HP.COM (Sam Espartero) (08/15/90)
#/ hpspdra:comp.windows.ms / laughner@news.nd.edu (Tom laughner) / 11:26 am Aug 13, 1990 /
#You do not need additional memory management for 386 enhanced. That's
#what HIMEM.SYS is. Windows in 386 enhanced does not have the 640k
#barrier. This means that if you have two MB of memory, this is
#contiguous memory...whether it's a Windows application or a non-Windows
^^^^^^^^^^^
640K barrier still applies here! How'd you run a 512K
non-windows application if you open a DOS window and find out you only
have 450K? The reason a lot of folks (including myself) try to sqeeze in
more conventional RAM, especially if Network software is present, is to
accomodate these non-windows apps, a.k.a. 640K-DOS.
----------
- Sam (disclaimer won't compile) Espartero -
Hewlett-Packard, Stanford Park
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA. 94304pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) (08/29/90)
That's the whole point. Microsoft made it incompatible on purpose. They decided not to be VCPI compliant. Anything that tries to use protected mode (QEMM, Paradox386, Autocad386, etc.) will have a LOT of trouble in conjunction with Windows 3.0 Enhanced mode (or even Standard Mode, for that matter.) The folks at Quarterdeck are, as ever, on top of things. They're fix for this latest Microsoft attempt to increase software entropy is QEMM 5.1. I've seen it, it works, and I'm a little amazed to see how quickly they responded. Please don't blame Quarterdeck for the (neverending?) shortcomings of Microsoft. Eric Pilger NASA Infrared Telescope Facility
pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) (08/29/90)
A lot of confusion seems to be arising from the never ending battle Microsoft seems to wage with the rest of the world. Microsoft has always claimed that their memory management is better (himem.sys, smartdrive.sys). In past versions, you actually had to find a way to lie about what you had, just to get Windows installed. The truth has been that a number of high quality products have always been preferable to what Windows gives you. These products (Qualitas 386Max, QEMM, CEMM, Compaq Cache, etc.) have always worked with Windows (contrary to the claims of the installation program.) They provide a much needed service. For people like myself who use networks, they are indispensible. Windows 3.0 claimed, once again, that it could do things better. This time it backed up its words with actions, and denied access to any but the most basic functionality for those who bucked the system. The vendors of some of the above products ahve nonetheless found work arounds and given us back what we cannot do without (and what Windows 3.0 does not provide.) With QEMM 5.1, you can run Windows 3.0 in Standard Mode (there is not yet an equivalent fix for QRAM.) You can load your network drivers high, and still get 550Kb DOS windows from within windows. You cannot multitask using Enhanced Mode, but you can multitask using DESQview. The only thing you loose is Enhanced Mode (ie. Multitasking.) YOU DO NOT BREAK THE 640K BARRIER WITH ENHANCED MODE. The problem is not in the thing the thing the runs the software. The problem is in the software itself. The majority of software written does not recognize the existence of more than 640K, hence the 640K barrier. The ONLY thing that can break the 640K barrier is protected mode software. A lot of this WON'T RUN under Windows 3.0 Enhanced Mode. Eric Pilger NASA Infrared Telescope Facility
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (08/29/90)
In article <9129@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) writes: >Please don't blame Quarterdeck for the (neverending?) shortcomings of >Microsoft. Is it any more fair to blame Microsoft for the shortcomings of VCPI? Aaron Wallace
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (08/29/90)
Eric Pilger <pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> writes in a nice, objective manner: > The only thing you loose is Enhanced Mode (ie. Multitasking.) YOU DO > NOT BREAK THE 640K BARRIER WITH ENHANCED MODE. The problem is not in > the thing the thing the runs the software. The problem is in the > software itself. The majority of software written does not recognize > the existence of more than 640K, hence the 640K barrier. The ONLY > thing that can break the 640K barrier is protected mode software. A > lot of this WON'T RUN under Windows 3.0 Enhanced Mode. In fact, much of the software (soon to be a vast majority) that breaks the 640K barrier will ONLY run under Windows 3.0 (these are known as "Windows applications"). Most of the rest will work with Windows, and only those using the older VCPI extended memory interface will refuse to work with Windows. Get a clue, Eric. You're bitching at Microsoft because Windows 3.0 doesn't work well with QEMM/386 without understanding *WHY* Microsoft uses DPMI instead of VCPI. Windows is also primarily an operating environment for Windows apps, *NOT* a multitasker for DOS apps -- and the Windows apps *CAN* break the 640K barrier. [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) (08/30/90)
>>Please don't blame Quarterdeck for the (neverending?) shortcomings of >>Microsoft. > >Is it any more fair to blame Microsoft for the shortcomings of VCPI? > >Aaron Wallace Only too true, I suppose. Somedays I think I may scream the next time I see an exception #13. My main beef with Microsoft is their insistence on making good, useful software difficult (or impossible) to use. It's a pity since Windows 3.0 is such a fine product. Not only have they cured many shortcomings of previous versions, but they have created a fine new product in its own right. If they would only get off their high horse and work with the industry, the product would be perfect! Eric Pilger NASA Infrared Telescope Facility
pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug29.114402.7527@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: > >In fact, much of the software (soon to be a vast majority) that breaks the >640K barrier will ONLY run under Windows 3.0 (these are known as "Windows >applications"). But this is the same old song and dance we have been hearing for years. The facts are that only a few Windows Applications currently take advantage of this feature. To become "a vast majority", Windows 3.0 must be clearly superior, and it is not. It does not provide tools for making the most of EXISTING APPLICATIONS. Countless others have already learned that you ignore this at your own peril. Microsoft still seems to be learning the lesson. >Get a clue, Eric. You're bitching at Microsoft because Windows 3.0 doesn't >work well with QEMM/386 without understanding *WHY* Microsoft uses DPMI >instead of VCPI. I understand Microsoft uses DPMI because it meets its own agenda. What I'm bitching at is that I have to pay the price for this agenda that contains many things of absolutely no importance to me. Microsoft is welcome to go its own way. However, I need to use DOS, and the extensive powers it already provides. I can't wait for the still unfulfilled promise of OS/2, and sadly, the currently unfulfilled promise of Windows 3.0. Windows is also primarily an operating environment for Eric Pilger NASA Infrared Telescope Facility
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug29.114402.7527@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: |Get a clue, Eric. You're bitching at Microsoft because Windows 3.0 doesn't |work well with QEMM/386 without understanding *WHY* Microsoft uses DPMI |instead of VCPI. I second that emotion! -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (08/31/90)
pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) writes: >In article <1990Aug29.114402.7527@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >> >>In fact, much of the software (soon to be a vast majority) that breaks the >>640K barrier will ONLY run under Windows 3.0 (these are known as "Windows >>applications"). >But this is the same old song and dance we have been hearing for >years. The facts are that only a few Windows Applications currently >take advantage of this feature. To become "a vast majority", Windows Excuse me, but this is simply not true. All old (i.e. 2.x) applications which played by the rules take advantage of this feature, i.e. run under Windows 3 in protected mode, without any modification. In fact, my little KLOTZ game (which I distributed in February) was written without any knowledge about Windows Version 3. Someone ran it through one of the "mark as win 3 app" utilities, and now you can find it on ftp servers in the Windows 3 app area. Many other applications share this behaviour. >3.0 must be clearly superior, and it is not. It does not provide >tools for making the most of EXISTING APPLICATIONS. Countless others While I like the support for existing old applications - which is clearly superior to what OS/2 delivers -, I definitely am most interested in what Windows 3 does for WINDOWS APPLICATIONS. The ability to run old and matured Windows applications in protected mode is most welcome. The highest priority on my private wishlist is a usable resource management system (like the Macintosh one). But this does not provide anything for existing applications, either (SIGH). >have already learned that you ignore this at your own peril. >Microsoft still seems to be learning the lesson. >>Get a clue, Eric. You're bitching at Microsoft because Windows 3.0 doesn't >>work well with QEMM/386 without understanding *WHY* Microsoft uses DPMI >>instead of VCPI. >I understand Microsoft uses DPMI because it meets its own agenda. >What I'm bitching at is that I have to pay the price for this agenda >that contains many things of absolutely no importance to me. I would like to know what things are of absolutely no importance to you. >Microsoft is welcome to go its own way. However, I need to use DOS, >and the extensive powers it already provides. I can't wait for the >still unfulfilled promise of OS/2, and sadly, the currently >unfulfilled promise of Windows 3.0. What promise of OS/2? What unfulfilled part of that? What unfulfilled promise of Windows 3? Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
ahd@kendra.kew.com (Drew Derbyshire) (09/01/90)
From article <9140@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>, by pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger): > In article <1990Aug29.114402.7527@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >>Get a clue, Eric. You're bitching at Microsoft because Windows 3.0 doesn't >>work well with QEMM/386 without understanding *WHY* Microsoft uses DPMI >>instead of VCPI. > > I understand Microsoft uses DPMI because it meets its own agenda. And what is their own agenda? Your comment doesn't answer the question, because its own agenda is defined by the business case, etc. Also, doesn't it match your agenda? Drew Derbyshire Internet: ahd@kendra.kew.com Snail mail: 108 Decatur St, Apt 9 Voice: 617-641-3739 Arlington, MA 02174