[comp.windows.ms] Problems setting up 386 enhanced mode

nadkarni@ashok.nac.dec.com (ashok p. nadkarni) (08/03/90)

I am having problems setting up Windows 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode.

Setup - 386SX with 2 Megs, WD1006MMV HD controller, Everex EV391
expanded memory card (EMS 3.2), Phoenix BIOS (not sure what version),
DOS 3.1. No TSR's.

If I load the Everex EMS driver through my config.sys file, Windows
always starts up in Standard mode. On the other hand without the EMS driver,
Windows comes up in 386 Enhanced mode as expected but then I have no
way of using the 2Meg on my expanded memory board since the driver is
not installed. So with the EMS driver loaded, I tried starting up Windows
with the 3 option to force 386 enhanced mode. Windows exited with a

'error: could not lead 386 enhanced mode expanded memorydriver.'

or something similar. So I thought OK, Windows is trying to load its
expanded memory driver and failing because there is already a EMS driver
installed. So I tried the /n option (which disables use of expanded memory
or something). Still got the same error message. So then
I tried setting the following in my SYSTEM.INI file

NoEMMDriver=true

Still no go. So I added another line

EMMExclude=A000-EFFF

in case there was a conflict when Windows scanned memory. Still no go.

Does someone out there have an answer as to what might be wrong ? Will
386 enhanced mode refuse to work if there is a EMS 3.2 driver ? THe
user guide clearly states (in the section on 386 enhanced mode) to load
the EMS card's driver so my configuration does not seem illegal. 

In case it is related, loading windows in 386 enhanced or even standard mode
seems to take a long time with a LOT of disk activity. Real mode is much
faster. Is this normal ?

HELP!!

Ashok Nadkarni

heiser@tdw201.ed.ray.com (08/07/90)

In article <14207@shlump.nac.dec.com> nadkarni@ashok.nac.dec.com (ashok p. nadkarni) writes:
>
>In case it is related, loading windows in 386 enhanced or even standard mode
>seems to take a long time with a LOT of disk activity. Real mode is much
>faster. Is this normal ?
>

On my 386/25, it takes 14-15 seconds to load.  Is it taking longer than 
that for you?

-- 
Bill Heiser
	Work:   heiser@tdw201.ed.ray.com
		{decuac,necntc,uunet}!rayssd!tdw201!heiser
	Home:   Bill.Heiser@f240.n322.z1.fidonet.org (Fidonet 1:322/240)
		The Think_Tank BBS (508)655-3848  1200/2400/9600-HST
	Other:  75106.2332@compuserve.com
	Other:	heiser@world.std.com     (Public Access Unix)

patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (08/08/90)

In article <14207@shlump.nac.dec.com> nadkarni@ashok.nac.dec.com (ashok p. nadkarni) writes:
>In case it is related, loading windows in 386 enhanced or even standard mode
>seems to take a long time with a LOT of disk activity. Real mode is much
>faster. Is this normal ?

When running in enhanced or standard mode, Windows has to create a swap file
on the disk.  It will basically use up a bit of your disk for this
file.  In real mode, this operation is not necessary since you don't have
virtual memory.  This being the case, it will start up much faster.
-- 
"Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for
 trivial pursuit."  -Harlan Ellison

Patrick Deupree ->	patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us

pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (08/09/90)

> >
> >In case it is related, loading windows in 386 enhanced or even standard mode
> >seems to take a long time with a LOT of disk activity. Real mode is much
> >faster. Is this normal ?
> >
> 
> On my 386/25, it takes 14-15 seconds to load.  Is it taking longer than 
> that for you?
> 
> -- 
> Bill Heiser
> 	Work:   heiser@tdw201.ed.ray.com
> 		{decuac,necntc,uunet}!rayssd!tdw201!heiser
> 	Home:   Bill.Heiser@f240.n322.z1.fidonet.org (Fidonet 1:322/240)
> 		The Think_Tank BBS (508)655-3848  1200/2400/9600-HST
> 	Other:  75106.2332@compuserve.com
> 	Other:	heiser@world.std.com     (Public Access Unix)
> ----------

Let me take a wild guess here.  I thought 15 seconds ins't very long.

Anyway, why don't you use a disk cache program (like PC-KWIK I'm using).
My 386/25 (no RAM cache) loads in about 8 seconds. And definitely no
disk trashing. By the way, I have about 2 MB cache in extended memory.


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 !

heiser@sud509.ed.ray.com (Bill Heiser - Unix Sys Admin) (08/11/90)

In article <18950002@hpfinote.HP.COM> pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) writes:
>
>Anyway, why don't you use a disk cache program (like PC-KWIK I'm using).
>My 386/25 (no RAM cache) loads in about 8 seconds. And definitely no
>disk trashing. By the way, I have about 2 MB cache in extended memory.
>

Well, I have 8mb of RAM, with a 4mb Cache.  The 386/25 has no cpu cache.
I would guess that if I were to load windows, then exit and re-load it,
the start-up time would be significantly less.  I'll try it and see. 



-- 
Bill Heiser
	Work:   heiser@tdw201.ed.ray.com
		{decuac,necntc,uunet}!rayssd!tdw201!heiser
	Home:   Bill.Heiser@f240.n322.z1.fidonet.org (Fidonet 1:322/240)
		The Think_Tank BBS (508)655-3848  1200/2400/9600-HST
	Other:  75106.2332@compuserve.com
	Other:	heiser@world.std.com     (Public Access Unix)

poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (08/16/90)

In article <2020@sud509.ed.ray.com> heiser@tdw201.ed.ray.com writes:
>In article <14207@shlump.nac.dec.com> nadkarni@ashok.nac.dec.com (ashok p. nadkarni) writes:
>>
>>In case it is related, loading windows in 386 enhanced or even standard mode
>>seems to take a long time with a LOT of disk activity. Real mode is much
>>faster. Is this normal ?
>>
>
>On my 386/25, it takes 14-15 seconds to load.  Is it taking longer than 
>that for you?
>

My 386/25 only takes about 5 seconds to come up (to a basic screen with just
the program manager running.). Of course, I have a SCSI system and Wren IV
drives that clocks in at > 1.3Mbyte / sec transfer rate. I think disk access
has a lot to do with windows performance.

Since it is so fast, I also bring up the file manager as an icon, that takes a
few more seconds while it sorts out the directories, but it is quite
acceptable.


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