Have you had a chance to put it into cvs yet?
not yet, my cable [hence internet connection] went out (and back, and
out, ...) last weekend, so I was planning to do it this weekend. check
fdos project on sourceforge.
I'm also putting the 0.2.14 source up on darklogic, it is the latest in
the
Hi Alain,
Quoting Jack's comment:
=
Johnson -- I noticed Alain's latest "MS-DOS" comments on FD-Devel.
DO confirm to Alain, as I wrote you, that my V6.22 MS-DOS does NOT
"slow down" from using or not-using UMBs! If UMBs do "slow down"
FreeDOS, he or others need to see WHY!Best wishes!
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 01:07:48 +0100 (BST), you wrote:
Hi Alex,
>Have you had a chance to put it into cvs yet?
Will you help improving it?
Thanks Kenneth J. Davis, he wrote ATAPICDD from scratch, but seems
he's busy for a longtime, to improve the driver seems not possible for
now.
Also the drive
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:57:33 -0300, you wrote:
Hi Alain,
>Where can I find an explanation about overlap. What is it? I could not
>understad from the docs what is overlapping with what.
The XDMA document have detail information. In short, overlap means
XDMA will buffer all output and return to
Eric Auer escreveu:
Hi Johnson...
Thanks to Jack Ellis, he did help me to test HIMEM 3.10 and FDXMS
0.94. Even under MS-DOS the memory manager DO affect hard disk speed...
I ran 4 tests unzipping my 2.2-GB "zeros" file onto my C:...
A) FDXMS, no XDMA overlap: 54.0 seconds.
C) HIMEM
Hi Johnson...
> Thanks to Jack Ellis, he did help me to test HIMEM 3.10 and FDXMS
> 0.94. Even under MS-DOS the memory manager DO affect hard disk speed...
> I ran 4 tests unzipping my 2.2-GB "zeros" file onto my C:...
> A) FDXMS, no XDMA overlap: 54.0 seconds.
> C) HIMEM, no XDMA
Hi,
Thanks to Jack Ellis, he did help me to test HIMEM 3.10 and FDXMS
0.94. Even under MS-DOS the memory manager DO affect hard disk
accessing speed ...
[quote]
I ran 4 tests unzipping my 2.2-GB "zeros" file onto my C: drive (it
uses only 74-MB for files without Win/XT's PAGEFILE.SYS and so has
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:21:03 +0100 (BST), you wrote:
Hi Alex,
>It so happens that I've just been playing with DOS 7.10 (in Windows
>98SE). One of the most interesting things about it is that it uses
>DBLBUFF.SYS to locate BUFFERS in high memory. At least if I increase
>buffers from 1 to 20, th
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:36:04 -0300, you wrote:
Hi,
I need to prepare "test".
Brief test shows slowdown in FreeDOS really serious, 50% slowdown is
not a "normal" value.
Rgds,
Johnson.
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Mig
I received this in PVT, but I believe it may interrest...
Hi Johnson, MS DOS does not use the HMA for BUFFERS as far
as I know, so indeed: The 10-20% slowdown if DOS=HIGH should
not happen on MS DOS. But on the other hand, buffers in HMA
give you a lot more DOS RAM free :-).
The real problem is
10 matches
Mail list logo
