phys169@canterbury.ac.nz (08/27/90)
In article <RMBP4C3@dri.com>, frotz@dri.com (Frotz) writes: > joonsong@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (Suk-Hyun Song) writes: > ]In article <35010004@hpfinote.HP.COM> pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) writes: > ]>... you'll never be able to get > 600 K free with MS-DOS > ]>and one of QRAM, 386MAX etc. (unless you use hercules card). This is > ]>because MS-DOS must reside in low memory. > I personally think it is the responsibility of the operating system to recognise the extra memory, quite apart from the slight efficiency gains in putting such stuff into the o/s rather than an add-on product. This isn't to say these products aren't wonderful, rather Microsoft has been dragging its feet (in my humble opinion) for too long. The makers of DR DOS seem to have a more sensible attitude to what should go into an o/s (and what shouldn't); so it gets my vote for more reasons than a few Kb here and there (actually, I manage to get around 800Kb available memory on a 386 with mono screen, but on many 286's I get around 600Kb - still a worthwhile improvement to some people). > ]I suppose this is all a matter of definition. > ]Does a 640K computer have 640000 bytes or 655360? > ]If you think 1K = 1024 bytes, then 600K = 614400 bytes. > ] Or if 1K = 1000 bytes, then 600K = 600000 bytes. > I think we should standardise on small "k" to mean 1000 (as it does everywhere else), and capital "K" for 1024, so 640Kb = 655.36 kilobytes. The problems really come when we talk of disk space in Megabytes - may mean 1000000 bytes or 1000Kbytes or 1024Kbytes; 1024000 is silly, methinks, but a lota people seem to use it! Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (08/30/90)
I've asked this question twice with no answer; and I'm going to ask it again ! With DR DOS loaded and about 620 Kb free, CAN YOU RUN WINDOWS 3.0 in 386 ENHANCED MODE ? If NOT, than it is just TOO BAD, and looks like DR misses the boat again. > Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. wrote ..... > > I personally think it is the responsibility of the operating system to > recognise the extra memory, quite apart from the slight efficiency gains in > putting such stuff into the o/s rather than an add-on product. This isn't to > say these products aren't wonderful, rather Microsoft has been dragging its > feet (in my humble opinion) for too long. > I agree completely (also that Microsoft was dragging their feet). However, there's a distinction between theoretical/academic computer science and practical/real-world computer science. Basically, in my opinion, IBM PC and MS-DOS provides an environment where all the sins in computer science were committed :-). The BIOS is too slow, so people pokes the hardware directly. The OS is a dog so people patched and hack it to speed. BUT ! MS-DOS become the standard and CP/M-86 is forgotten. In fact, I thought CP/M was much better designed than MS-DOS. It is re-entrant and task switching overhead is low. BUT ! Like I said, they missed the boat because they are not MS-DOS compatible. Now, the world is jumping on the Windows 3.0 platform. Is DR DOS going to miss the boat again ? Anybody want to supply the answer ? 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 ! #include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>
pnl@hpfinote.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (09/14/90)
But ....
But ....
But ....
But ....
But ....
But ....
Does it works with WINDOWS 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode with all the goodies
loaded HI ???????? ..... Can't remember how many times I ask this
question :-(. Any answer coming ? Surely there must be. I don't
believe all DR DOS 5.0 users are NOT interested in Windows 3.0 at all !
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 !
#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>