At 06:48 PM 8/24/2004 -0300, Alain wrote:
So now I have something to wish for. It looks that the most compatible _and_ safe behaviour is to map RAM to X=TEST, which was exactly your first suggestion :)
Safest, but very incompatible with MS expected RAM behavior. Not the reverse either, just something quite different. I don't expect users would want RAM == X=TEST.
nothing - No UMB available, smaller lower memory, only for problematic cases
Nothing is the same as RAM with FreeDOS EMM386. UMB's are available and auto-scanned for ROM signatures in range C000-EFFF. EMS is present, I forget the formula for how much but could look it up. Probably defaults to 32M, or successively halving that until sufficient memory exists.
NOEMS - I don't use EMS and UMB is enabled. Basic use, could be UMBPCI but this is hardware dependent. VCPI is only needed because it of EMM386 itself.
NOEMS leaves support for a few EMS calls on with MS-DOS, which is stupid, but could be for easier VCPI support. FreeDOS EMM386 also supports these EMS calls under NOEMS because several programs have come to depend on this MS-DOS stupidity. Then there's the EMM device driver renaming, but don't get me started... VCPI pool allocation is made with NOEMS up to 12M automatically, based on 1/4th of available memory. I think. Documented in EMM386C.C and EMM386.ASM source.
RAM - EMS and UMB available
Default option with FreeDOS, no difference if it's there or not.
NOEMS RAM - Maybe here the RAM option should not be used (not needed), correct?
Same as NOEMS, above.
------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
