|
|
|
#1
03-25-2008, 04:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
DOS LOADHI question
My cmd.exe (dos prompt) on XP is sticking 34,720 for "DOSX" in low memory. But MEM's "largest available upper memory block" is 48,288 (which is of course shown as "FREE"). Anyone know why? Autoexec.bat and config.sys are 0 bytes, but my understanding (and recollection) was that XP would stick stuff high without my intervention such as an explicit LOADHI. I believe that it does at home.
And please resist demonstrating anyone's ignorance by mocking this request 
__________________
______ ON STRIKE. Thomas Jefferson and I are on strike against AO over a little matter called the First Amendment and censorship against dissenting views. I hereby choose to toss my voluntary contributions into the Harbor rather than accede in slavery to the oppressor. 
|
|
#2
03-25-2008, 05:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
BTW, \windows\system32\autoexec.nt does have
lh %SystemRoot%\system32\dosx
__________________
______ ON STRIKE. Thomas Jefferson and I are on strike against AO over a little matter called the First Amendment and censorship against dissenting views. I hereby choose to toss my voluntary contributions into the Harbor rather than accede in slavery to the oppressor.
|
|
#3
03-26-2008, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am not a expert but there was memory that was available to dos to load thing high that is not available in newer machines. I have 2 machines at work, one that has Windows 98se and one with XP. We have a dos based admin system and on the Windows 98 machine I get more available ram than on the XP machine. Turns out there are some things I can do on the 98 machine that I can't do on the XP machine because of the difference in memory. When I did some research I found, mostly on older type gaming site the explanation about newer machines not having this memory which is only needed by older type dos programs. Newer Windows programs don't have a need to use this type of memory so PC makers used some of this memory for hardware speed up things.
I have tested this on a few machines here and have found this to be true. Older machines sometimes work but the newer machines never do.
|
|
#4
03-26-2008, 09:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Arg, the flashbacks. Stop. Stop. I definitely don't miss messing with config.sys to get my old DOS systems optimized.
Sorry, no help here. Maybe once Brad gets his retired butt up out of bed (  ), he will offer some insight.
__________________
Some people are like clouds. When they disappear, it's a brighter day.
|
|
#5
03-26-2008, 07:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I agree with your comments about DOS and memory management, which was needed to use memory from the high memory block in 386 machines. That stuff is ancient history, and I am afraid that I, too, have nothing useful to offer. I'll bet Mike Davlin (wherever he may be) can help, tho.
__________________
Brad Gile, FSA, MAAA Affiliate Member of the CAS Dedicated Retired Actuary Spoiler: Spoiler:
|
|
#6
03-27-2008, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If my memory serves, my same machine with same OS (XP) had been loading DOSX high. Rather than hardware I'm more suspicious that the self-annointed rocket scientists at Microsoft made software changes, and forced them through via update pushes. They have a proud history of making changes, not making them optional, whilst smugly proclaiming "Look, no one uses _____ any more."
__________________
______ ON STRIKE. Thomas Jefferson and I are on strike against AO over a little matter called the First Amendment and censorship against dissenting views. I hereby choose to toss my voluntary contributions into the Harbor rather than accede in slavery to the oppressor.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
