gantony@gara.une.oz.au (George Antony) (05/20/91)
Has anybody out there been beta testing DOS 5 with Desqview ? Are there any clashes in memory management, and how do the respective utilities for utilizing high memory compare ? Is there any reason why one should forgo upgrading to DOS 5 which appears a pretty good effort on the basis of info so far ? ------------------------------------------------------------- George Antony (gantony@gara.une.oz.au) Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia Fax: (+61-67) 711531 Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs) -------------------------------------------------------------
greg@agora.rain.com (Greg Broiles) (05/21/91)
In article <6439@gara.une.oz.au> gantony@gara.une.oz.au (George Antony) writes: >Has anybody out there been beta testing DOS 5 with Desqview ? > >Are there any clashes in memory management, and how do the respective >utilities for utilizing high memory compare ? My dad is beta testing DOS 5; I haven't wanted to play with it because I'm currently trying to finish my senior project and want to be sure that the crashes I see are my own, not Microsoft's. :) He seems to be happy with the DOS 5/DV/QEMM combination, with some sticky points: DOS 5 does away with the /X switch for the BUFFERS statment, forcing you to use the lower 640K memory area for buffers. DOS 5 wants to load itself into the first 64K of extended memory (the spot where Desqview likes to hide), meaning that DV can't hiload itself there. DOS itself, though, will fit there - so he can get MEM to report 639K free at the DOS prompt. (before loading anything, obviously..) Someone he talked to at Microsoft said many beta people had been complaining about the loss of the BUFFERS /X switch and that there was a good chance it'd be back by the time DOS 5 is released. >------------------------------------------------------------- >George Antony (gantony@gara.une.oz.au) >Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management >University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia >Fax: (+61-67) 711531 Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs) >------------------------------------------------------------- -- ".. organized crime is the price we pay for organization." - Raymond Chandler Greg Broiles | CI$: 74017,3623 | greg@agora.rain.com PO Box 8988, Portland, OR 97207-8988 | MCIMail: gbroiles
thoger@solan.unit.no (Terje Th|gersen) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.013414.25378@agora.rain.com> greg@agora.rain.com (Greg Broiles) writes: In article <6439@gara.une.oz.au> gantony@gara.une.oz.au (George Antony) writes: >Has anybody out there been beta testing DOS 5 with Desqview ? > >Are there any clashes in memory management, and how do the respective >utilities for utilizing high memory compare ? My dad is beta testing DOS 5; I haven't wanted to play with it because I'm currently trying to finish my senior project and want to be sure that the crashes I see are my own, not Microsoft's. :) He seems to be happy with the DOS 5/DV/QEMM combination, with some sticky points: DOS 5 does away with the /X switch for the BUFFERS statment, forcing you to use the lower 640K memory area for buffers. DOS 5 wants to load itself into the first 64K of extended memory (the spot where Desqview likes to hide), meaning that DV can't hiload itself there. DOS itself, though, will fit there - so he can get MEM to report 639K free at the DOS prompt. (before loading anything, obviously..) Someone he talked to at Microsoft said many beta people had been complaining about the loss of the BUFFERS /X switch and that there was a good chance it'd be back by the time DOS 5 is released. >------------------------------------------------------------- >George Antony (gantony@gara.une.oz.au) >Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management >University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia >Fax: (+61-67) 711531 Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs) >------------------------------------------------------------- -- ".. organized crime is the price we pay for organization." - Raymond Chandler Greg Broiles | CI$: 74017,3623 | greg@agora.rain.com PO Box 8988, Portland, OR 97207-8988 | MCIMail: gbroiles Hi! I'm using DOS 5.00.409c win QEMM 5.11 and DESQView. Works like a charm, all of it. Before DOS 5.0 I got 579K after loading all drivers etc, now I get 619K. The only problem is, as noted, that DOS 5.0 gets the first 64k of the 2nd MB, which earlier was available to DV. This gives me a 'first-window' size of about 490k in DV, compared to about 485k before DOS 5.0. Regards, -Terje -- ____________________________________________________________________________ thoger@solan.unit.no | Institute of Physical Chemistry THOGER AT NORUNIT.BITNET | Div. of Computer Assisted Instrumental Analysis | Norwegian Institute of Technology
teexnma@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) (05/22/91)
nino@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk In <1991May21.013414.25378@agora.rain.com> greg@agora.rain.com (Greg Broiles) writes: >In article <6439@gara.une.oz.au> gantony@gara.une.oz.au (George Antony) writes: >>Has anybody out there been beta testing DOS 5 with Desqview ? >> >>Are there any clashes in memory management, and how do the respective >>utilities for utilizing high memory compare ? **** Haven't seen any. However, I've been using QEMM's loadhi rather than LH/LOADHIGH which comes with DOS5. Furthermore, since DOS5 can load itself high, additional parts of low memory (0c00-0cff) became available (on my 386SX). [*** stuff deleted ***] >DOS 5 does away with the /X switch for the BUFFERS statment, forcing you >to use the lower 640K memory area for buffers. *** A pre-release (not beta!!) version of DOS5 which I've got doesn't complain about the /X; however, I'm not sure where the buffers actually are. >DOS 5 wants to load itself into the first 64K of extended memory (the spot >where Desqview likes to hide), meaning that DV can't hiload itself there. >DOS itself, though, will fit there - so he can get MEM to report 639K free >at the DOS prompt. (before loading anything, obviously..) *** Unfortunately true. Therefore, now I have less mem in a BigDos window than I had with DOS4.01. W/o DV I get 635K with MOUSE,KEYB and NANSI loaded (+ Anarkey in exp.mem - yes, I do know of DOSKEYB, but I got hooked on Anarkey :-), with DV I get 560K in a BD window. The only annoying thing I've noticed is that if I try to load SMARTDRV, then KEYB refuses to load (remedy: unload NANSI). >Someone he talked to at Microsoft said many beta people had been complaining >about the loss of the BUFFERS /X switch and that there was a good chance it'd >be back by the time DOS 5 is released. *** Hope that comes true. --Nino P.S. Haven't seen any answers on that thread about DEVICE.COM... -- Janet: nino@uk.ac.ucl.sm.mph \ Nino Margetic Earn/Bitnet: nino@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk \ Dept. of Medical Physics Internet: nino%mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\ University College London Bang-path: ....!mcvax!ukc!ucl-mph!nino \ Tel:+44-71-380-9300/x5313