QHIMEM v2.3 (New Reminder) - China DOS Union Forum - China DOS Union

Originally posted by Wengier at 2006-5-26 11:08 PM:
The compatibility of HIMEM in MSDOS7.1 is a bit better than QHIMEM. The compatibility of QCDROM and VIDE-CDD seems to be about the same, but QCDROM obviously occupies less memory.

Brother Wengier has really strong observation skills. The reason why QHIMEM has relatively poor compatibility is that the author Jack started development based on the 386 CPU standard. For older PCs with some older BIOS, there are some problems.

Also, because Jack tried his best to simplify QHIMEM and didn't want to put too much "compatibility" into it, because what users didn't reflect was that there were no problems.

In the past few days, a German friend reported that QHIMEM couldn't see the memory above 14MB on his PC. Jack has added E820h and the old 64-MB request, as follows:

/T1 Try only BIOS "E820h" requests.
/T2 Try only a BIOS "E801h" request.
/T3 Try "E820h" requests first, then try "E801h".
/T4 Try only an old 64-MB request.
/T5 Try "E820h" requests, then an old 64-MB request.
/T6 Try an "E801h" request, then an old 64-MB request.
/T7 Try "E820h", "E801h", then an old 64-MB request.

QHIMEM needs everyone's help to improve compatibility. Because the PCs of me and Jack can use the E801h method smoothly, so we didn't know that there are still many old machines using the 64-MB request. The drive can't be done in one go, and everyone's opinions are needed.

Floor16　Wengier	Posted 2006-05-26 23:08
系统支持　Posts 10,521　Credits 27,736
Originally posted by brglng at 2006-5-26 04:34 PM: How does QHIMEM compare with HIMEM from MSDOS7.1, and how does QCDROM compare with VIDE-CDD? The compatibility of HIMEM from MSDOS7.1 is a bit better than that of QHIMEM. QCDROM and VIDE-CDD seem to have similar compatibility, but QCDROM obviously takes up less memory.

Floor17　johnsonlam	Posted 2006-05-30 14:37
银牌会员　Posts 497　Credits 1,410　From 九龍，香港
Originally posted by Wengier at 2006-5-26 11:08 PM: The compatibility of HIMEM in MSDOS7.1 is a bit better than QHIMEM. The compatibility of QCDROM and VIDE-CDD seems to be about the same, but QCDROM obviously occupies less memory. Brother Wengier has really strong observation skills. The reason why QHIMEM has relatively poor compatibility is that the author Jack started development based on the 386 CPU standard. For older PCs with some older BIOS, there are some problems. Also, because Jack tried his best to simplify QHIMEM and didn't want to put too much "compatibility" into it, because what users didn't reflect was that there were no problems. In the past few days, a German friend reported that QHIMEM couldn't see the memory above 14MB on his PC. Jack has added E820h and the old 64-MB request, as follows: /T1 Try only BIOS "E820h" requests. /T2 Try only a BIOS "E801h" request. /T3 Try "E820h" requests first, then try "E801h". /T4 Try only an old 64-MB request. /T5 Try "E820h" requests, then an old 64-MB request. /T6 Try an "E801h" request, then an old 64-MB request. /T7 Try "E820h", "E801h", then an old 64-MB request. QHIMEM needs everyone's help to improve compatibility. Because the PCs of me and Jack can use the E801h method smoothly, so we didn't know that there are still many old machines using the 64-MB request. The drive can't be done in one go, and everyone's opinions are needed.

Floor18　brglng	Posted 2006-06-06 16:14
银牌会员　Posts 466　Credits 1,200　From 上海
I think that basically there's not much need to support those old hardware. We should work hard to develop support for new hardware.

Floor19　johnsonlam	Posted 2006-06-06 17:03
银牌会员　Posts 497　Credits 1,410　From 九龍，香港
Originally posted by brglng at 2006-6-6 04:14 PM: I think there is basically no need to support those old hardware. We should work hard to develop support for new hardware. There are users complaining!