[maupec]

Hi, I've appreciate the good work done in unofficial patch for 98 SE.

I only ask if it is possible to introduce in this patch the option of modify the settings in DOS to get more memory, as with old QEMM, or MEMMAKER in DOS 6.

Thanks, and good work !

maupec

[jimmsta]

I believe the problem with these utilities is that you cannot run them alongside Windows, as windows has its own memory manager, EMM, which does sorta the same thing. Also, if you're using an application big enough that you need more memory available to dos, why not use windows? At least that way, you can allocate more than the standard 640k ram to a process. (windows 95/98/Me, NOT XP).

[lilliccu]

If you have this problem debugging old Dos Clipper Programs, and you cannot use CLD for "Low Memory" message , you can compile them with B-Linker using some options.
You can write me for more news.
Bye !
The Sardinian Wizard

[MDGx]

I believe Gape should better answer this question.

As far as I know 98SE SP2 is strictly a patcher, not a tweaker.
Besides, DOS tweaks are only needed/wanted by the few [myself included ] who still use/play DOS programs/games from within/outside Windows.

On the other hand, if you like to tweak your 98SE DOS modes, please see MEMORY.TXT, part of W95-11D.EXE + W95-11D.ZIP [freeware for personal use]:
http://www.mdgx.com/95.htm

PS:
You don't need EMM386, QEMM, NetRoom or 386MAX to achieve ~ 624-629 KB of free conventional DOS RAM in native/true MS-DOS mode outside Windows, you need UMBPCI.SYS [in case you don't need expanded memory, otherwise u do need an EMS memory manager]:
http://www.mdgx.com/umb.htm
Example:
http://www.mdgx.com/mem7.htm
Memory managers:
http://www.mdgx.com/newtip20.htm#9SMM
Max memory/performance in a DOS box:
http://www.mdgx.com/newtip23.htm#WDBT

Hope this helps.

[eidenk]

There is a GUI tool to tweak DOS called MS-DOS Mode Wizard Customization (DOSWZCFG.EXE) that is part of the Win 95 Kernel Toys.

Very unfortunately it does not have a help file so it is very difficult for me to figure out what all the many options exactly do as I am not exactly a DOS geek.

That's the type of MS tools Gape should consider including in his pack I think. Along with TweakUI, TimeZone Editor, Boot Editor and ScanRegistry Editor I would say.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 18 September 2005 - 05:36 AM

[maupec]

Thanks for all suggestions !

Now I'll try all to get more memory with all your material.

The fact is that I've programmed a software for work, using Clipper (Summer 87 !!!), that runs very well, but with more memory would run better.

Thanks, and good work, waiting for the next update of very "exuberant" unofficial 98 !

maupec

[Rhelic]

Perhaps you should give DosBox a try, that might give you more memory than a DOS boot or a dos window.

[erpdude8]

I have a question for maupec (if he decides to post again in the near future). Do you frequently use programs that really require pure DOS mode instead of using Win98?

Suggestions by Rhelic and MDGx to get more DOS memory are wonderful.

[MDGx]

Rhelic, on Sep 29 2005, 07:39 AM, said:

Perhaps you should give DosBox a try, that might give you more memory than a DOS boot or a dos window.

DOSBox cannot increase the amount of memory available in a DOS window more than it is actually possible, because of Windows GUI + VMM restrictions/requirements, which cannot be broken, no matter the settings/options in autoexec.bat, config.sys, msdos.sys, system.ini, win.ini, registry etc.
Also, the amount of memory available to apps/games in native/true/pure MS-DOS mode is always greater than the amount of free RAM in DOS boxes [even if using DOSBox], because the native/true/pure MS-DOS mode does not have the Windows GUI loaded.
DOSBox basically "matches" a DOS game memory requirements [minimum necessary amount of free RAM, conventional, upper, extended and/or expanded] and/or hardware [video, sound, networking, drives/partitions, COM ports, CPU speed etc] resources with the ones provided by Windows in GUI mode [not real/true/pure MS-DOS mode, which is an entirely different "beast"], to make sure respective DOS game runs properly on most MS Windows computers.
That's why DOSBox is sometimes of limited use [Windows DOS boxes] or of no use whatsoever [native/true/pure MS-DOS mode].
Best to run DOS games from native/true/pure MS-DOS mode whenever possible [by tweaking autoexec.bat, config.sys, msdos.sys + specific game settings], to avoid Windows GUI overhead and VMM restrictions, which may crash certain DOS games, which may otherwise run ok from native MS-DOS [outside Windows GUI].
More details in MEMORY.TXT, part of W95-11D.EXE:
http://www.mdgx.com/95.htm

Unfortunately, there are a few DOS games that do not run [or run but lock up] from within Windows DOS boxes.
In such cases one needs to reboot [or exit Windows 9x/ME if ATX mode disabled: http://www.mdgx.com/98-4.htm#98ATX ] to native/true/pure MS-DOS mode, and then play that DOS game without Windows GUI overhead.
Most such games require custom RAM amounts/types and/or to take over exclusively certain hardware resources [sound, video, real-mode X86 CPU etc].
Example:
Any DOS program/game that requires VCPI memory will *not* run from within Windows, because to date there is no version of Windows that can provide VCPI memory to DOS boxes.
More details:
http://www.mdgx.com/newtip23.htm#WDBT

Windows NT4/2000/XP/2003/Vista users [lucky b**tards! ] can take advantage of VDMSound [free GPL]:
http://vogons.zetafl...opic.php?t=2071
http://www.sourcefor...jects/vdmsound/
which provides [similar to DOSBox] specific hardware resources to DOS apps/games.

DOSWZCFG from 95 Kernel Toys:
This a very limited tool, can tweak only a few autoexec.bat + config.sys settings.
DOSWZCFG is of no use if custom settings are needed, and/or if necessary files [like EMM386.EXE, MSCDEX.EXE, SMARTDRV.EXE etc] are not found at default locations [like %windir%\COMMAND or %windir%].
Any serious DOS tweaker will avoid using DOSWZCFG.EXE.

Hope this helps.

This post has been edited by MDGx: 13 October 2005 - 05:06 AM

[Rhelic]

DosBox gives me 637k free of base memory (without me even doing any tweaking) with 15megs XMS and 15megs EMS.

That's more base memory than was ever possible compared with Dos 5 or Dos 6 IIRC. I believe back then I was impressed when I could tweak the system to hit as much as 620k free.

If DosBox doesn't give you enough memory, then you have another problem. If you use DosBox and something complains about not enough base memory, either the app is corrupt or there's a very bizarre bug that you need to take up with the DosBox community.

So technically yes, DosBox gives you more ram than what was previously "possible". If you think you need more than 637k then perhaps you need to take Prozac, no classic multimedia DOS system could get this much memory free, so you now have more base ram free than any game/app expects you too.

This post has been edited by Rhelic: 13 October 2005 - 01:25 PM

[MDGx]

If DOSBox gives you 637 KB of free conventional RAM, that means it does something similar to QEMM memory manager, i.e. strips most or all environment blocks from TSRs that allow this to happen, and/or moves some DOS modules [the ones that allow it, like portions of the command interpreter] to upper and/or extended memory, similar probably to what Helix NetRoom Multimedia Cloaking Tools used to do back in the good ol' DOS days.
Note that in my experience these procedures will in certain conditions lockup the computer, because Windows I/O and/or VXDs may also compete for same memory blocks, and due to the fact that Win9x VMM is 16-bit, it will take the GUI with it, usually requiring a "hard" reboot.

Also, it is possible [thru routines exemplified above] to achieve 630 or more of free conventional RAM, *but only if* there are no (E)BIOS/Video/HDD/RAID/SCSI/etc modules loaded in upper RAM.
Example:
most HighPoint PATA RAID controllers I know of take for their BIOS the UMA blocks located at CCFF-D3FF or similar, and there is *no way* this memory can be restored to be used by DOS or by any other app/game for that matter.
Most NVidia GeForce video controllers BIOS take for themselves the UMA blocks at C000-CBFF or similar.
Put together all this unusable upper RAM, and you won't have 637 [or not even 615] KB free conventional, even if using DOSBox.
These are all hardware limitations.

About conventional memory needed by DOS based programs:
I have received an email from a DOS user some years ago, saying that he couldn't run his small "mom-and-pop" motel business financial software [the program name escapes me now] without having at least 670 KB of free conventional RAM.
This can be achived only from native/true/pure MS-DOS, and only if video controller color functions [VGA modes] are completely disabled, and works only if the video controller is monochrome [very old technology].
QEMM [ver 8 and 9] has this capability, can provide up to 728 KB of free conventional RAM, if using the right command line parameters. NetRoom and 386MAX can also provide in certain situations over 630 KB of free conventional RAM.

Without performing any "fancy" [video] memory relocations or environement "stripping", QEMM, NetRoom, 386MAX, DR-DOS EMM386 and UMBPCI.SYS can provide up to 629 KB of free conventional RAM in normal conditions.
Microsoft EMM386 manager can only provide up to 625 KB, because it needs HIMEM.SYS loaded in conventional RAM, and its own conventional memory module takes ~ 4 KB.

In my experience the most memory demanding DOS game I've played was an early version of Falcon 4, it used to require 619 KB of free conventional RAM, at least 30 DOS BUFFERS and at least 60 DOS FILES in config.sys, besides expanded memory enabled with the EMM386 RAM and/or HIGHSCAN command line switches, and did not work with any expanded memory manager except microsoft EMM386.EXE 4.95 [ships with Win9x/ME].

Hope this helps.

[Rhelic]

MDGx, on Oct 13 2005, 04:49 PM, said:

In my experience the most memory demanding DOS game I've played was an early version of Falcon 4, it used to require 619 KB of free conventional RAM, at least 30 DOS BUFFERS and at least 60 DOS FILES in config.sys, besides expanded memory enabled with the EMM386 RAM and/or HIGHSCAN command line switches, and did not work with any expanded memory manager except Microsoft EMM386.EXE 4.95 [ships with Win9x/ME].

Yes, I recall the days when DOS games started to require 600k or more of base ram. Which is a lot after you had a multimedia PC (mouse, sound card and CD ROM) all of which ate huge chunks of base ram.

Then DOG4GW came along and suddenly games got rid of strict base ram requirements as DOS4GW handled memory for the game. Doom 1 was one of the first major games to use this. IMHO Doom 1 would have never been possible without it.

Update: A minor historical note I wanted to add, I recall once using up lots of base ram to see how low I could go and still let Doom 1 run and I was able to get the system as low as 412k or so of base ram and Doom 1 still ran. Please keep in mind this is all from memory 12-13yrs ago, but still goes to show that solutions like DOS4GW really saved the world of PC gaming until Windows was formally adopted.

This post has been edited by Rhelic: 18 October 2005 - 12:11 PM

[MDGx]

I took a closer look at DOSBox, and it does not apply/use any of the "normal" [microsoft/intel x86 specific] memory mapping schemes I've talked about in my previous posts.
On the PC I tested it on, even with huge GeForce video + HPT RAID BIOSes UMA blocks already occupied, it still provides 637 KB or conventional RAM. Impressive.
I guess it uses a linux/unix specific memory mapping technique, and I'm not familiar enough with *nix OSes [yet] to know those routines.

My only gripe with DOSBox is that it has only a limited number of embedded commands 1 can use [taken also from linux].