[comp.windows.ms] QEMM Obsolete? was: Windows 3.0 and QEMM

tes@cbnewsl.att.com (terrance.e.sterkel) (05/25/90)

From article <443@latvax8.lat.oz>, by CCMK@latvax8.lat.oz (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.):
> 
> I installed v3.0 on my IBM model 70 with QEMM-simulated 4MB expanded
> memory and it worked fine during install and even showed the expected
> amount of expanded memory in the about... box.
> 
> On restarting it, with either win /2 or win /3, the program says
> something like 'Other protected mode programs working - abort'.

I Called Quarterdeck about this, their solution is to NOT RUN
WINDOWS in protected mode, but BUY THEIR DESKVIEW to run win85
in it.  I had a few choice words about compatibility.  Further
research indicates that if you could switch off QEMM EMS but
keep everything else functioning, then you would have the best
of all worlds.  

In any Case, If I am right, WIN 3.0 finally handles highmem,
expanded and extended memory automatically, making QEMM obsolete.

Any confirmation?

thanks,
terry
.

todd@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) (05/29/90)

From article <443@latvax8.lat.oz>, by CCMK@latvax8.lat.oz (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.):
> I installed v3.0 on my IBM model 70 with QEMM-simulated 4MB expanded
> memory and it worked fine during install and even showed the expected
> amount of expanded memory in the about... box.
> 
> On restarting it, with either win /2 or win /3, the program says
> something like 'Other protected mode programs working - abort'.

Umm.. Correct me if I am mistaken... But I never expected Windows 3.0 to
work with QEMM on a 386. Windows 3.0 is supposed to handle protected mode
memory. This means that it would collide with any software that also
attempts to directly manipulate protected mode memory (like QEMM does).
This is also the case for Windows 386 2.11 which tries to deal with
protected memory directly (though less effectively than Windows 3.0). I
haven't received my update yet, but I am expected that I will have to have
different CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files in order to deal with Windows
3.0 and non-Windows (i.e., plain DOS) software. My guess is a lot of us
will be rebooting a lot when we move between Window 3.0 and DOS
configurations... todd

-- 
Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii
UUCP:		{uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd
ARPA:		uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL		BITNET: todd@uhccux
INTERNET:	todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU

CCMK@latvax8.lat.oz (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.) (05/30/90)

 From article <443@latvax8.lat.oz>, by CCMK@latvax8.lat.oz (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.):
>> I installed v3.0 on my IBM model 70 with QEMM-simulated 4MB expanded
>> memory and it worked fine during install and even showed the expected
>> amount of expanded memory in the about... box.
>> 
>> On restarting it, with either win /2 or win /3, the program says
>> something like 'Other protected mode programs working - abort'.

Since I posted this article (unfortunately before May 22, which got me into
trouble) I have found that win /r (for real mode) is the correct switch.

I use QEMM to make using my network software bearable (it takes up about
150 KB worth of valuable conventional memory).  QEMM not only makes
expanded memory out of extended but also allows loading of device
drivers into high memory.

The question is: can I do away with QEMM and load all necessary drivers
and network TSRs and then load windows and still get lots of usable
memory?  If I wish to run an application that needs expanded memory,
such as WordPerfect, can it still work well in the windows environment,
especially with little left below 640 KB?

By the way, I have a 80386 computer with 5 MB memory.

Mark Kosten,          phone: +61 3 479-2767
Computer Centre,      ACSnet/UUCP/Bitnet: ccmk@latvax8.lat.oz
La Trobe University,  X25: 234730008 (ccmk@latrobe.edu.au)
Bundoora,
Victoria 3083
Australia

deisenb@ic.sunysb.edu (David I Eisenberg) (05/31/90)

In article <453@latvax8.lat.oz> CCMK@latvax8.lat.oz (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.) writes:
>The question is: can I do away with QEMM and load all necessary drivers
>and network TSRs and then load windows and still get lots of usable
>memory?  If I wish to run an application that needs expanded memory,
>such as WordPerfect, can it still work well in the windows environment,
>especially with little left below 640 KB?

I run WordPerfect 5.0 (I haven't installed the new 5.1 yet... ugh) in a
Window and in Full-Screen mode and never see a problem.  Of course, you
cannot pre-View a page (shit-F7, v) in a Window -- I think someone posted
a solution to that, however; merely set WordPerfect up as running on CGA.
Now, I don't do extensive work in WordPerfect (hundreds of column def's,
math functions, pictures, etc.) but I do use it for almost all my word
processing and I've never had a problem.  Dare I say I still like WordPerfect
better than MS Word?  Oooof... could be a bad statement in THIS conference!
:-)  I guess I just haven't gotten the time to learn WfW yet...

-Dave
--
Dave Eisenberg                       SUNY at Stony Brook Computer Science
deisenb@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu  -or-  deisenbe@sbccvm.bitnet

bxw@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Brad Willcott) (06/01/90)

todd@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) writes:

[...]
>............................................... My guess is a lot of us
>will be rebooting a lot when we move between Window 3.0 and DOS
>configurations... todd

Why?  Run the DOS apps under Windows, then you won't need all of those 
headaches with rebooting different setups.

-- 
Brad Willcott,                          ACSnet:     bxw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz
Computing Services,                     Internet:   bxw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au
Australian Defence Force Academy,       UUCP:!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ccadfa.oz!bxw
Northcott Dr. Campbell ACT Australia 2600  +61 6 268 8584  +61 6 268 8150 (Fax)

todd@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) (06/02/90)

In article <1582@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> bxw@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Brad Willcott) writes:
>todd@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) writes:
>>............................................... My guess is a lot of us
>>will be rebooting a lot when we move between Window 3.0 and DOS
>>configurations... todd
>Why?  Run the DOS apps under Windows, then you won't need all of those 
>headaches with rebooting different setups.

Assuming 100% of DOS applications will run in a 3.0 window, fine. But I
doubt if that is the case. And even, if 100% of aps do run in a window, at
least one set of benchmarks (Infoworld's) shows 3.0 to be slower than 2.11.
This means that we can expect to see performance penalties severe enough to
make us go back to DOS now and then ....todd
-- 
Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii
UUCP:		{uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd
ARPA:		uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL		BITNET: todd@uhccux
INTERNET:	todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU

tom@ramona.Cary.NC.US (Tom Salzmann) (06/04/90)

todd@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) writes:

> > >will be rebooting a lot when we move between Window 3.0 and DOS
> > >configurations... todd
> >Why?  Run the DOS apps under Windows, then you won't need all of those
> >headaches with rebooting different setups.
> Assuming 100% of DOS applications will run in a 3.0 window, fine. But I
> doubt if that is the case.

Windows 3.0 is clearly the environment of choice for running WINDOWS
applications.  I can't argue with that.  For DOS applications, however,
Windows does provide multitasking, but DesqView 386 is the easy winner where
the concerns are performance and compatibilty.

Windows is not good enough for me to give up DesqView.  I was hoping
it would be.  It is slower and takes up more RAM.  For running a
BBS, Windows cannot share the CPU as cleanly as DesqView.  Either the BBS,
or the foreground window or both suffer.

> This means that we can expect to see performance penalties severe enough to
> make us go back to DOS now and then ....todd

Yes, or DesqView if that's the case.  BTW, Windows runs quite nicely in
real mode in a DesqView window.  Maybe that's the solution for those of us
who have one or two Windows applications to deal with.
--
Tom Salzmann <tom@ramona.Cary.NC.US>