At 10:26 PM 4/24/2004 -0400, Steve Nickolas wrote: >Michael Devore wrote: >>At 01:52 AM 4/25/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousovwrote: >> >>>Hi! >>> >>>24-įŠŅ-2004 23:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >>> >>>EA> EMM386 RAM= is well enough implemented if you make it an alias to X= if >>>EA> you ask me. >>> >>> Wrong. >> >>X= will limit the range checked, same as RAM does, but using the converse range. X= >>is more powerful and flexible than RAM, though. EMS support is a default condition, >>so that does nothing. RAM is apparently a very old option and mostly obsolete. >>I= is a forced inclusion except for X= ranges. RAM is a test for inclusion with >>forced exclusion outside the range. Test for inclusion is the default condition >>without an X= or I=. That makes RAM much more similar to X=, and its behavior able >>to be duplicated by X= settings. > >I thought "ram" by itself meant dynamic EMS allocation as opposed to allocating a >fixed amount (at least, this is what the docs day), that's how I use "ram" in M$ >EMM386.
It's not documented that way on any EMM386 docs I see, including Microsoft's. It wouldn't matter, because we don't support that type of behavior anyway. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Robotic Monkeys at ThinkGeek For a limited time only, get FREE Ground shipping on all orders of $35 or more. Hurry up and shop folks, this offer expires April 30th! http://www.thinkgeek.com/freeshipping/?cpg297 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
