ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) (09/29/90)
I am in the midst of the agony of trying to decide which SX board to buy. I know I want a Chips & Tech chip set and AMI BIOS, but one of the options is a board that has EMS 4.0 built in. Does this seem like a good idea? Might it be faster or less likely to crash? Would it even be of any use? Thanks in advance for your collective help. -ted- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ted@helios.ucsc.edu |"He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the W (408)459-2110 |Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness H (408)423-2444 |and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8 (RSV)
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (09/29/90)
In article <7297@darkstar.ucsc.edu> ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) writes: >I am in the midst of the agony of trying to decide which SX board to buy. >I know I want a Chips & Tech chip set and AMI BIOS, but one of the options >is a board that has EMS 4.0 built in. Does this seem like a good idea? Don't fuss over the EMS capability. It is great for 286's, but with a 386 (sx/dx.. who cares) the EMS capability is much better when provided by software such as QEMM or 386^MAX. With hardware EMS, you are usually stuck with the supplied drivers, which do not approach the capabilities of these two software packages. In summary, with a 386 system, built-in EMS 4.0 is not something you should demand or require of the motherboard. Ignore it and look at the other features instead, such as memory capacity, good construction, good built-in bios setup program, etc.. And plan on buying QEMM or 386^MAX. -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (10/20/90)
In article <4460@bwdls58.UUCP>, mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes... > >Don't fuss over the EMS capability. It is great for 286's, but with a 386 >(sx/dx.. who cares) the EMS capability is much better when provided by >software such as QEMM or 386^MAX. I disagree. I have a need to be able to load programs into high RAM, but not under the guise of protected mode. The way to do this would be with the C&T chipset, which has built-in EMS 4.0 capability, rather than QEMM. Alas, I don't have this capability, and am stuck with poor performance running heavy-duty coprocessor operations. It pays to consider all the options. jim =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital Equipment Corporation." James J. Reisert Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert 77 Reed Road Hudson, MA 01749-2895
draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (10/21/90)
In article <16508@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: > >In article <4460@bwdls58.UUCP>, mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes... >> > >I disagree. I have a need to be able to load programs into high RAM, but >not under the guise of protected mode. The way to do this would be with the >C&T chipset, which has built-in EMS 4.0 capability, rather than QEMM. Alas, >I don't have this capability, and am stuck with poor performance running >heavy-duty coprocessor operations. > >It pays to consider all the options. > >jim > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital > Equipment Corporation." > >James J. Reisert Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com >Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert >77 Reed Road >Hudson, MA 01749-2895 I thought that all access to EMS was through the protected mode, and that even if you had a C&T chipset it didn't change things. The C&t Chipset simply eliminates the need for an EMS board. Also I believe that the software emulation of EMS on a 386 machine is faster than using the C&T chipset because the 386 can switch between real and protected mode very quickly compared to a 286. Patrick Draper ----- Michigan State University
kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) (10/21/90)
In article <16508@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes: > I have a need to be able to load programs into high RAM, but >not under the guise of protected mode. 386MAX has a utility called 386LOAD which will load programs into high DOS memory, without 386MAX's protected mode being invoked. It just requires that there be RAM up there. -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) (10/22/90)
In <1990Oct20.204053.20116@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) wrote: > I thought that all access to EMS was through the protected mode, and > that even if you had a C&T chipset it didn't change things. Not true. EMS has nothing to do with protected mode. QEMM & 386^max kludge EMS support by using the pager in the 386. > Also I believe that the software emulation of EMS on a 386 machine is > faster than using the C&T chipset because the 386 can switch between > real and protected mode very quickly compared to a 286. But that's not the whole story. When in virtual 86 mode, the 386 runs slower than in real mode (not all operations). So even if QEMM were somewhat faster than the C&T code, the system overall is slower. In addition, QEMM and such things have serious compatibility problems. You're always better off with hardware support if you have it because (1) it's net faster and (2) it's more compatible and less like to cause the floppy drive to fail or something. -- James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Dell Computer Co 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759 512-338-8789
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/23/90)
In article <48848@bigtex.cactus.org> james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) writes: |In <1990Oct20.204053.20116@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, draper@cpsin2.cps.msu.edu | (Patrick J Draper) wrote: | |> I thought that all access to EMS was through the protected mode, and |> that even if you had a C&T chipset it didn't change things. | |Not true. EMS has nothing to do with protected mode. QEMM & 386^max As a matter of fact, EMS was invented for the 8088, which doesn't even have a protected mode. |kludge EMS support by using the pager in the 386. I wouldn't call it a kludge. I would call the incomplete implementations offered by C&T and the like a kludge. |> Also I believe that the software emulation of EMS on a 386 machine is |> faster than using the C&T chipset because the 386 can switch between |> real and protected mode very quickly compared to a 286. C&T implements EMS in hardware so there is no issue with the time it takes to switch from real to protected mode. |In addition, QEMM and such things have serious compatibility problems. Actually, it is C&T that has serious compatibility problems with things like DESQVIEW. |You're always better off with hardware support if you have it because |(1) it's net faster and (2) it's more compatible and less like to |cause the floppy drive to fail or something. If you're saying a 286 with C&T is better than a 386 with QEMM or 386Max, I disagree. -- The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.