At 11:36 PM 4/25/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>Hi!
>
>25-áÐÒ-2004 11:02 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>I thought "ram" by itself meant dynamic EMS allocation as opposed to
>>>MD> It's not documented that way on any EMM386 docs I see, including
>>>EMM3
Hi!
25-Апр-2004 11:02 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I thought "ram" by itself meant dynamic EMS allocation as opposed to
>>MD> It's not documented that way on any EMM386 docs I see, including
>>EMM386 may be able to convert additional amounts of XMS memory to
Michael Devore escribió:
At 01:52 AM 4/25/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousovwrote:
Hi!
24-áÐÒ-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 check
At 05:53 PM 4/25/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
>Hi!
>
>24-áÐÒ-2004 21:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>>>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
Hi!
24-Апр-2004 21:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>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.
MD> It's not documented that way on
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-áÐÒ-2004 23:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>>
>>>EA> EMM386 RAM= is well enough implemented if you make it an alias
Michael Devore wrote:
At 01:52 AM 4/25/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousovwrote:
Hi!
24-áÐÒ-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
At 01:52 AM 4/25/2004 +0400, Arkady V.Belousovwrote:
>Hi!
>
>24-áÐÒ-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
Hi,
(Arkady, I know that you also posted to this thread, but the shit of
programs that I used to remove spam trashed your message, could you
please re-send to me that in private? I like keeping those messages as
mails than acceeding them from web; anyone kind out there can also
resend, thanks)
Hi!
24-Апр-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.
__O\_/_\_/O__
X=-
Prevents EMM386 from usin
Hi all... great, I like TODO list changes :-).
> http://fdos.org/ripcord/fdos_1_0/official/todos.htm
EMM386 RAM= is well enough implemented if you make it an alias to X= if
you ask me. ROM= on the other hand would be not too hard to do (Michael
already shadows ROM to trap :0 reboots). But RO
11 matches
Mail list logo
