Thanks again Glenn (please see below :-).
Regards,
Joe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn McCorkle [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2000 10:59
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Glenn : V1.64 : Cool crash! (xSwap)
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:35:07 +1000, da Silva, Joe wrote:
>
> > Thanks Glenn ... please see below ...
>
> > Joe.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Wow! Are you allowing EMM386 to use address A0000-AFFFF?
> > I've never been brave enough to do that (also, I had thought this
> > address range was required by the video card graphics?).
>
> I don't use EMM386.
> QEMM works *much* better.
> But, the big difference is that I load epppdd.exe high.
> Connection @lh epppdd.exe>PPP.LOG
>
[da Silva, Joe]
Ah, that makes more sense ;-). Yes, I gather QEMM is much better,
alas I don't have QEMM. However, I am adept at loading stuff high
manually (eg. on one PC, I managed to get nearly 120K more stuff
loaded high than "M$-memmaker" could ;-).
Sadly, it isn't convenient for me to load EPPPD high - I have too
many
other things that I need up there ...
> > Anyway, the 78/79K is Green [+] (although I don't know what the
> > [+] means), with images on (of course ;-) and the EPPPD packet
> > driver resident. Given that I start Arachne with about 100K *more*
> > free conventional memory than the documentation claims is needed
> > (supposedly 530K to use with the "inbuilt PPP" ?!), how could this
> > be an issue, right?
>
> The 530K is only enough if you can also load the packet driver "high".
>
[da Silva, Joe]
Ummm ... Good theory, but I don't think that's what the doco. is
saying. ;-)
The doco. states "460K or, if using inbuilt PPP, 530K". Now that's a
difference of 70K, which just happens to correspond almost exactly
to the amount of memory the EPPPD packet driver takes up (69K).
So, while I too think the 530K figure is understated, I don't think
that loading EPPPD high is what is being assumed. Indeed, the
doco. implies that 460K would be enough if your packet driver is
loaded high.
I think the doco. just *assumes* that once your packet driver has
loaded, extra demands on conventional memory are minimal. I'm
pretty sure, however, that some pages cause additional demands,
in the order of at least 20-30K.
Oh ... and I still don't know what the "[+]" means ... ;-)
> <snip>
>
> >> As if anyone here hadn't already guessed it... I LOVE this stuff. :-)
>
> >> So, if you'de like to.... CC all such reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> I'll diagnose *exectly* what's in the page that's causing it and send
> >> the report back.
>
> > [da Silva, Joe]
>
> > I'd be happy to ... but to clarify, do you mean "To
> > arachne-development"
> > with "CC glenmcc" ?
>
> Only the reports that you would normally send just to Michael at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
[da Silva, Joe]
Ahhh, but I don't bother to send stuff to "xchaos" anymore ... you
may
have noticed my "subtle" gripe that Michael just seems to ignore the
stuff I report. ;-)
The advantage of sending to the "arachne-development" list of
course,
is that others (and Michael ;-) can also comment and/or verify these
issues (primarily about stability problems). I did ask on two
previous
occasions whether the stuff I was reporting should be sent to this
list,
but there was no reply on both occasions (which I took to mean that
nobody objected to discussing these issues here).
> I'll get [EMAIL PROTECTED] and arachne-development automatically.
>
>
> Glenn McCorkle [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Jackson, Ohio, USA
> DOS prog. for QV cameras http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/qvplay.html
> Other stuff http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> --
> Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS
> Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed.
> Download Arachne for DOS http://browser.arachne.cz/dos/
> Visit the Arachne home page http://arachne.cz/
