Re: Blazing fast computer.
chuckcar
news:qqqok3tsjpbphp0d7...@4ax.com:
> Took a online survey for a laptop computer - asking my preferences on
> color, weight, speed, etc. My choices for the laptops (showed
> different combinations of color, speed, weight and price) to see which
> combination I'd prefer. The CPU speed choices were 1.66 MHz or 2.33
> MHz. Yes. MHz. This was shown about a dozen times. Not just once or
> twice.
>
> I'm pretty sure my first computer was 4.77 MHz.
>
> That put these laptops to shame.
Actually I had a computer that was *slower* than either (barely) - The
6502 (or 6510 if you nitpick) in the commodore 64 and vic-20 ran at 1.0
Mhz.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
why?
Even the 8080 , dual 360K disk box I had was faster then that, without
checking old posts it would have been 4.77MHz. The BBC Micro was 1MHz.
Me
Plato
>
> Took a online survey for a laptop computer - asking my preferences on
> color, weight, speed, etc. My choices for the laptops (showed
> different combinations of color, speed, weight and price) to see which
> combination I'd prefer. The CPU speed choices were 1.66 MHz or 2.33
> MHz. Yes. MHz. This was shown about a dozen times. Not just once or
> twice.
>
> I'm pretty sure my first computer was 4.77 MHz.
>
> That put these laptops to shame.
Laptops are generally slower than desktops. But, kids seem to be using
them more recently to play the latest games. Laptops are even replacing
desktops for "college students".
chuckcar
news:f19pk3lotm6u54c4b...@4ax.com:
8086 or 8088 actually. The 8080 was the *first* personal computer - the
Altair or IMSAI about 1976. I still have the old issue of Popular
Electronics where they first mention it around somewhere. 8088 was the
IBM PC and the 8086 was the AT. at 4.77 it would have been the 8088.
> Me
Rôgêr
> On 27 Nov 2007 20:11:01 -0600, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:
>
>> Laptops are generally slower than desktops. But, kids seem to be using
>> them more recently to play the latest games. Laptops are even replacing
>> desktops for "college students".
>
> 700 mhz.
Before laptops came out, they called them "luggables". The lid was a CRT
screen, not LCD.
Blinky the Shark
You guys have me quietly reminiscing, now. My first IBM clone (but not
my first computer) was a 386SX16 from a well-known OEM up in Minnesota
USA named Zeos.
When I'd gone shopping, it was that month's full-front-cover photo for
PC Magazine as the current hot bang-for-buck buy -- not specifically the
Zeos, but boxen with that chip, several of which were reviewed. I did
end up buying that system[1], and then when I got the package Zeos had
included a reprint copy of that PC Mag cover with the shipment; they
undoubtedly were stuffing all orders with it, as there wasn't much need
to promote that system if I'd already bought it. Somewhere, I still
have that PC Mag cover reprint from Zeos, just for grins. :)
[1] 386SX16, RAM upgrade from 1 to 2, 35MB Seagate drive, two floppy
drives, 14" color monitor, Win 3.0 / DOS 4.01. $2100 US.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
chuckcar
Oldus Fartus
news:wpymnov6f0en$.1mxxnz75ny6q6.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> ah yes, the good old days of the loveable, adorable PET.
> The forerunner of the desktop. Keyboard and mobo all in one package. Your
> os choice was DOS 1.0 and the available language was BASIC!
>
No, the PET never ran DOS 1.0.
> "64 kb of memory oughta be good enough for everyone" --- Bill Gates.
And no again, Bill Gates never said that.
--
Oldus Fartus
why?
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=181
Yea fancied 1 of those. Salesman wouldn't give me a discount when I
showed him how to use it in front of a customer, don't recall why.
What a scary link, the page before that for the O index has the Oric1
and ICL OPD,
Argh 1980 and the Video Genie / New Brain, tried 1 of those, although
there is the excellent HP-85.
These are what we had for 6502/PROM programmers at college, Rockwell AIM
65.
Going to have to stop there it's so scary remembering a lot of those and
how many I looked at when looking to buy.
Me
Blinky the Shark
His quote was about 640kb, wasn't it?
Jordon
> [1] 386SX16, RAM upgrade from 1 to 2, 35MB Seagate drive, two floppy
> drives, 14" color monitor, Win 3.0 / DOS 4.01. $2100 US.
My first was a brand new 286 (I think it was 12 MHz) with 640k of
ram, 40 meg HD, 2 floppy's, standard vga monitor, DOS 4.01 and
with a 9 pin Panasonic impact printer, all for the same price as
yours, $2,100.
--
Jordon
Leythos
jor...@REMOVEsamiamnot.com says...
Commodore PET 2001, 1978.
HP9830A in 76 (if I remember correctly)
IBM System 3/12 (in 76, even had Dual CPU modules).
Cosmac ELF (self built)
--
Leythos - spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive/index.php/t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
Oldus Fartus
news:slrnfkrfsk....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
> Oldus Fartus wrote:
>> little dick <sp...@google.dom> wrote in message
>> news:wpymnov6f0en$.1mxxnz75ny6q6.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>>
>>> ah yes, the good old days of the loveable, adorable PET.
>>> The forerunner of the desktop. Keyboard and mobo all in one package.
>>> Your
>>> os choice was DOS 1.0 and the available language was BASIC!
>>>
>>
>> No, the PET never ran DOS 1.0.
>>
>>> "64 kb of memory oughta be good enough for everyone" --- Bill Gates.
>>
>> And no again, Bill Gates never said that.
>
> His quote was about 640kb, wasn't it?
>
Supposedly, yes, but depending on where you look, it appears that he never
actually said that at all. IBM set the specs for the PC, and the 8086 CPU
could only address 1 meg of ram, and IBM specified that the area between 640
and 1024 k to be used for device drivers such as video. To access above
the 1 meg needed some pretty fancy kludges which we were stuck with for
quite some time.
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
Blinky the Shark
I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
that/those?
Holy shit. This just popped into my head: "extended memory versus
expanded memory". There's something I hadn't thought about in a lotta
years. :)
Blinky the Shark
Printer? I had to use a pointy stick and some dirt.
nobody >
The lid was actually the keyboard. I packed around the 286 portable for
enough years to never forget it.
Leythos
no....@box.invalid says...
> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
> that/those?
QEMM386
Penn...@derrymaine.gov
>> Supposedly, yes, but depending on where you look, it appears that he never
>> actually said that at all. IBM set the specs for the PC, and the 8086 CPU
>> could only address 1 meg of ram, and IBM specified that the area between 640
>> and 1024 k to be used for device drivers such as video. To access above
>> the 1 meg needed some pretty fancy kludges which we were stuck with for
>> quite some time.
The A60 gate, and the keyboard chip :)
>I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>that/those?
HIMEM.SYS would open the upper memory, the LH or devicehigh would put
that device, or program into that memory (if it would fit).
--
2007’s cradle-robbing Female Teachers
http://dirtywriter.net/?page_id=325
Penn...@derrymaine.gov
>In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>no....@box.invalid says...
>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>> that/those?
>QEMM386
Never used that myself, found that
EMM386.EXE NOEMS FRAME=E000 I=CE00-EFFF
took care of all my needs.
Leythos
Penn...@DerryMaine.Gov says...
> Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
> >no....@box.invalid says...
> >> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
> >> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
> >> that/those?
>
> >QEMM386
>
> Never used that myself, found that
> EMM386.EXE NOEMS FRAME=E000 I=CE00-EFFF
> took care of all my needs.
Qemm was part of the suite that would offer a lot more than EMM did, you
could actually multi-task some apps with those tools.
Oldus Fartus
>
> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
> that/those?
>
Now that is exercising the grey matter.
From memory (no pun intended) that area could only be used for device
drivers, buffers, TSRs etc. Then just to confuse things further there was
the high memory area which was about 64k just above 1 meg, which could also
be used in the same way for some drivers. Because the area between 640k
and 1024k also had things like ROM mapped into it, it wasn't a contiguous
stretch of memory so it took a bit of thought to work out the order you
loaded the different device drivers and TSRs to fill in the gaps between the
unmoveable sections.
> Holy shit. This just popped into my head: "extended memory versus
> expanded memory". There's something I hadn't thought about in a lotta
> years. :)
>
Yeah - it was pretty diabolical back then, and we had to think about it
quite often. I used to play a fair few games then, and was forever tuning
the system. Some games wanted extended memory, some wanted expanded
memory, and yet others had their own versions of memory managers. A lot of
us ended up having to use boot floppies until DOS caught up and provided a
way of configuring the computer as it booted.
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
Blinky the Shark
> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
> no....@box.invalid says...
>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>> that/those?
>
> QEMM386
I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
Blinky the Shark
<memories come drifting back in to the sleek, sharkly head>
Blinky the Shark
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
>
>
>>
>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>> that/those?
>>
>
> Now that is exercising the grey matter.
>
> From memory (no pun intended) that area could only be used for device
> drivers, buffers, TSRs etc. Then just to confuse things further there was
> the high memory area which was about 64k just above 1 meg, which could also
> be used in the same way for some drivers. Because the area between 640k
> and 1024k also had things like ROM mapped into it, it wasn't a contiguous
> stretch of memory so it took a bit of thought to work out the order you
> loaded the different device drivers and TSRs to fill in the gaps between the
> unmoveable sections.
>
>> Holy shit. This just popped into my head: "extended memory versus
>> expanded memory". There's something I hadn't thought about in a lotta
>> years. :)
>
> Yeah - it was pretty diabolical back then, and we had to think about it
> quite often. I used to play a fair few games then, and was forever tuning
Since we didn't have much memory, we had to be clever with what we did
have.
> the system. Some games wanted extended memory, some wanted expanded
> memory, and yet others had their own versions of memory managers. A lot of
Aye!
Mara
>Leythos wrote:
>> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>> no....@box.invalid says...
>>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>>> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>>> that/those?
>>
>> QEMM386
>
>I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
>from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
It was, and it did.
--
"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
--glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
chuckcar
> Oldus Fartus wrote:
>> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:slrnfkrfsk....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
>>> Oldus Fartus wrote:
>>>> little dick <sp...@google.dom> wrote in message
>>>> news:wpymnov6f0en$.1mxxnz75ny6q6.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ah yes, the good old days of the loveable, adorable PET.
>>>>> The forerunner of the desktop. Keyboard and mobo all in one
>>>>> package. Your
>>>>> os choice was DOS 1.0 and the available language was BASIC!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the PET never ran DOS 1.0.
>>>>
>>>>> "64 kb of memory oughta be good enough for everyone" --- Bill
>>>>> Gates.
>>>>
>>>> And no again, Bill Gates never said that.
>>>
>>> His quote was about 640kb, wasn't it?
>>
>> Supposedly, yes, but depending on where you look, it appears that he
>> never actually said that at all. IBM set the specs for the PC, and
>> the 8086 CPU could only address 1 meg of ram, and IBM specified that
>> the area between 640 and 1024 k to be used for device drivers such as
>> video. To access above the 1 meg needed some pretty fancy kludges
>> which we were stuck with for quite some time.
>
> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that
> enabled the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you
> remember that/those?
What you'd do is you'd load himem.sys (which gave you the 64K area
starting at 1Meg) and then load emm386.exe using no EMS. Depending of
the dos version (starting with 5 I think) it would be more or less
capable of fitting what came after into the UMB's that were there - if
you had a EGA/CGA/VGA card *and* a herc card on the same computer
though, you could forget about it - no memory left to speak of. I
remember with dos 5, you sometimes had to specify the size of the
program/driver when it was resident to get it to go up there. QEMM would
do what dos 6.x later did and optimize loading to UMB's to maximize free
space in the first 640K.
chuckcar
news:MPG.21b7ef261...@adfree.Usenet.com:
> In article <c09sk3h4g66t8ba7j...@4ax.com>,
> Penn...@DerryMaine.Gov says...
>> Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>> >no....@box.invalid says...
>> >> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that
>> >> enabled the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do
>> >> you remember that/those?
>>
>> >QEMM386
>>
>> Never used that myself, found that
>> EMM386.EXE NOEMS FRAME=E000 I=CE00-EFFF
>> took care of all my needs.
>
> Qemm was part of the suite that would offer a lot more than EMM did,
> you could actually multi-task some apps with those tools.
>
I believe you might be thinking of Deskview.
William Poaster
> On 29 Nov 2007 08:08:19 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>>> no....@box.invalid says...
>>>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>>>> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>>>> that/those?
>>>
>>> QEMM386
>>
>>I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
>>from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
>
> It was, and it did.
I remember using that back in the days when I ran Win 3.0 & 3.11. It was pretty
good, as I recall. :-)
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" (64bit),
Debian 4.0 (64bit), PCLinuxOS 2007.
Mara
>Mara wrote:
>
>> On 29 Nov 2007 08:08:19 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>>>> no....@box.invalid says...
>>>>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>>>>> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>>>>> that/those?
>>>>
>>>> QEMM386
>>>
>>>I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
>>>from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
>>
>> It was, and it did.
>
>I remember using that back in the days when I ran Win 3.0 & 3.11. It was pretty
>good, as I recall. :-)
Yes, it was. So was Cleansweep, when Quarterdeck had it.
William Poaster
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:12:02 +0000, William Poaster <w...@linux.amd64.eu> wrote:
>
>>Mara wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Nov 2007 08:08:19 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>>>>> no....@box.invalid says...
>>>>>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>>>>>> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>>>>>> that/those?
>>>>>
>>>>> QEMM386
>>>>
>>>>I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
>>>>from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
>>>
>>> It was, and it did.
>>
>>I remember using that back in the days when I ran Win 3.0 & 3.11. It was
>>pretty good, as I recall. :-)
>
> Yes, it was. So was Cleansweep, when Quarterdeck had it.
Yes! Back when I used windoze, I used that in 3.0 & 3.11 too.
There is a linux application "Kleansweep" which does a similar thing:
http://directory.fsf.org/project/kleansweep/
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.
Leythos
says...
Yep, that was part of the package if you bought QD. It was a great
solution to multitasking.
Blinky the Shark
> Mara wrote:
>
>> On 29 Nov 2007 08:08:19 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>>>> no....@box.invalid says...
>>>>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that
>>>>> enabled the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do
>>>>> you remember that/those?
>>>>
>>>> QEMM386
>>>
>>>I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM
>>>was from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS
>>>manager.
>>
>> It was, and it did.
>
> I remember using that back in the days when I ran Win 3.0 & 3.11. It
> was pretty good, as I recall. :-)
I think it was moot by W95, wasn't it?
Blinky the Shark
Good...er...memory! That all sounds familiar (when's the last time you
typed "herc card"? <g>), but I sure wouldn't have been able to pull it
out of my own meatRAM.
Mara
>William Poaster wrote:
>> Mara wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Nov 2007 08:08:19 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>>>>> no....@box.invalid says...
>>>>>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that
>>>>>> enabled the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do
>>>>>> you remember that/those?
>>>>>
>>>>> QEMM386
>>>>
>>>>I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM
>>>>was from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS
>>>>manager.
>>>
>>> It was, and it did.
>>
>> I remember using that back in the days when I ran Win 3.0 & 3.11. It
>> was pretty good, as I recall. :-)
>
>I think it was moot by W95, wasn't it?
Now *there's* some old-time memories I didn't need. Gah.
IF run THEN crash ELSE crash
REPEAT
Blinky the Shark
> On 29 Nov 2007 16:34:16 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>William Poaster wrote:
>>> Mara wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Nov 2007 08:08:19 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>>>> In article <slrnfks15m....@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
>>>>>> no....@box.invalid says...
>>>>>>> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that
>>>>>>> enabled the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do
>>>>>>> you remember that/those?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QEMM386
>>>>>
>>>>>I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM
>>>>>was from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS
>>>>>manager.
>>>>
>>>> It was, and it did.
>>>
>>> I remember using that back in the days when I ran Win 3.0 & 3.11. It
>>> was pretty good, as I recall. :-)
>>
>>I think it was moot by W95, wasn't it?
>
> Now *there's* some old-time memories I didn't need. Gah.
>
> IF run THEN crash ELSE crash
> REPEAT
http://blinkynet.net/comp/w2000src.html
Mara
>Mara wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2007 16:34:16 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>>>I think it was moot by W95, wasn't it?
>>
>> Now *there's* some old-time memories I didn't need. Gah.
>>
>> IF run THEN crash ELSE crash
>> REPEAT
>
>http://blinkynet.net/comp/w2000src.html
Looks about right for 95/98 and Vista Home Basic. I never had a bit of a problem
with 2k until I got this new camera though, and I've been running it since it
came out.
Plato
>
> >> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
> >> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
> >> that/those?
> >
> > QEMM386
>
> I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
> from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
QEMM was a bitch to configure as far as I can recollect.
Blinky the Shark
I don't recall that.
But it's been a long time. :)
Plato
>
> >> >> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
> >> >> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
> >> >> that/those?
> >> >
> >> > QEMM386
> >>
> >> I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
> >> from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
> >
> > QEMM was a bitch to configure as far as I can recollect.
>
> I don't recall that.
You had to add lines to config.sys and/or autoexec.bat
Often, as an aside, I had to fix many PCs by disabling QEMM with rem
commands.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I could swear I remember using some kind of memory utility that enabled
>> >> >> the use of the 384KB above 640 as RAM for programs. Do you remember
>> >> >> that/those?
>> >> >
>> >> > QEMM386
>> >>
>> >> I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
>> >> from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
>> >
>> > QEMM was a bitch to configure as far as I can recollect.
>>
>> I don't recall that.
>
> You had to add lines to config.sys and/or autoexec.bat
That I remember. I just didn't consider it much of a burden.
chuckcar
Well, I never had 6 and dos 5 I *learned* completely. Never needed
qemm386. Just didn't have the hardware to need it I guess. A couple of
years ago actually - on the card. I have a friend that writes code on a
linux system, and he *needs* two monitors, one that can't do graphics
for obvious reasons.
nobody >
I've been tearing what little hair I have left trying to remember the
brand name... there was always an elephant on the box :)
It wouldn't get 'quite' as much free RAM as QEMM, but it was usually far
better at creating a stable boot order of drivers/etc.
I probably remember the name QEMM better because I hated it so much.
Leythos
says...
QuarterDeck made QEMM and I loved it for being able to get the most
usable memory out of my systems - we ran a number of machine control
systems that used QEMM that used it - would run for months without a
reboot.
Plato
>
> > >> I wondered about EMM386 when I asked that. That was MS, IIRC. QEMM was
> > >> from Quarterdeck, I think, so it proabably did more than the MS manager.
> > >
> > > QEMM was a bitch to configure as far as I can recollect.
> >
> > I've been tearing what little hair I have left trying to remember the
> > brand name... there was always an elephant on the box :)
> >
> > It wouldn't get 'quite' as much free RAM as QEMM, but it was usually far
> > better at creating a stable boot order of drivers/etc.
> >
> > I probably remember the name QEMM better because I hated it so much.
>
> QuarterDeck made QEMM and I loved it for being able to get the most
> usable memory out of my systems - we ran a number of machine control
> systems that used QEMM that used it - would run for months without a
> reboot.
I used to use "environment" varibles to get the most out of available
ram. Cant recall what the lines were tho in either config.sys and/or
autoexec.bat.
They did work tho...