Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: EMM386 issues with 4GB RAM under MS-DOS 7.1

78 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com

unread,
Jul 8, 2009, 4:22:54 PM7/8/09
to
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:02:20 -0700 (PDT), a jones <81aj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>
> What do I do to solve
>this issue, 'cos many games won't work without free XMS being
>available.

Probably best unplug about 3.5 gig of the memory. :-)

I thought is was a well known -feature- that Win98 doesn't really like
more than 512meg of memory, probably because the problem that you have
seen.

Note: -feature-: MS term for a bug/problem.
--
ArarghMail907 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.

Marcus Houlden

unread,
Jul 8, 2009, 7:45:42 PM7/8/09
to
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:22:54 -0500, ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com <ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com>
wrote the following to comp.os.msdos.misc:

> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:02:20 -0700 (PDT), a jones <81aj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> What do I do to solve
>>this issue, 'cos many games won't work without free XMS being
>>available.
>
> Probably best unplug about 3.5 gig of the memory. :-)
>
> I thought is was a well known -feature- that Win98 doesn't really like
> more than 512meg of memory, probably because the problem that you have
> seen.
>
> Note: -feature-: MS term for a bug/problem.

Even documented at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253912/en-us

FWIW, I'm using the 32 bit version of XP on a machine with 4 GB of RAM for
work (I need to have Oracle, SQL Server and IIS on the same machine but they
use a lot of memory), and that doesn't allow you to use it all. It comes
back as something like 3.25 GB available. The fix would be the 64 bit
version of XP but that's not supported.

mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

Message has been deleted

JJ

unread,
Jul 9, 2009, 8:37:05 AM7/9/09
to
a jones wrote:
> On the same lines though, do any of you know of a RAM limiter or a
> program that will 'eat' around 3GB of my RAM and that I can load from
> CONFIG.SYS *before* EMM386, so that EMM386 sees far less physical RAM
> present? I'm pretty sure that might do the trick, but I haven't found
> any such utility so far...

EMM386 uses the memory provided by the XMS manager (HIMEM) and not the
native memory (BIOS). So try limiting the HIMEM to use less than 4GB of
memory. e.g.:

DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS /INT15=1024

This will leave 1024KB of native memory unallocated/unmanaged by HIMEM.
Roughly the total RAM minus 1MB will be the total amount of XMS memory.

pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Jul 9, 2009, 12:20:20 PM7/9/09
to
In article <4a371a5b-4058-41d5...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
81aj...@gmail.com "a jones" writes:

> Thanks for the quick replies everyone! :)
[snip]
> Re. FURD19L, I'm sorry, but I Googled it and had no success finding
> it. :( What is this exactly and where can I find it?

It's Franck Uberto's (?) ramdrive for DOS -- the smallest and
most powerful ramdrive I've seen. I think it can be used with
W95/98 with some provisos (it's all in the doc), as are there
loading it in config.sys rather than autoexec.bat.

I have fu_rd19i.zip here, so I guess the 1.9L version is later
and better...

Pete
--
"We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors,
we have borrowed it from our descendants."

Richard Bonner

unread,
Jul 14, 2009, 8:09:54 AM7/14/09
to
pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
(Re: XMSDSK)

> It's Franck Uberto's (?) ramdrive for DOS -- the smallest and
> most powerful ramdrive I've seen.

*** I agree. I now use it exclusively on all my DOS systems.


> I think it can be used with
> W95/98 with some provisos (it's all in the doc),

*** There are restrictions but it can be used.


> as are there loading it in config.sys rather than autoexec.bat.

*** Yup. WIN 9x balks at CONFIG.sys loading of this program.


> I have fu_rd19i.zip here, so I guess the 1.9L version is later
> and better...

> Pete

*** I am currently using 1.9i with excellent results.

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

0 new messages