China DOS Union

-- Unite DOS · Advance DOS · Grow DOS --
Union site: www.cn-dos.net　Forum site: www.cn-dos.net/forum

中国DOS联盟论坛
The time now is 2026-09-06 08:46

47,812 topics / 349,914 posts / today 0 new / 48,268 members

DOS启动盘 & LOGO技术（启动盘室） » One Example of Memory Adjustment on a Boot Floppy

Floor2　Wengier	Posted 2003-07-09 00:00
系统支持　Posts 10,521　Credits 27,736
"Another way is to replace bulky programs with compact programs that are faster and use less memory. Don't blindly trust authority; Microsoft is not necessarily very good." Well said! Things like the oakcdrom.sys that comes with 98 really aren't very good~~ vide-cdd.sys and the like are much better.。

Floor3　沈洁	Posted 2003-07-09 00:00
金牌会员　Posts 1,812　Credits 4,590　From 上海市
What the moderator said makes sense!

Floor4　yiyesong	Posted 2003-07-09 00:00
元老会员　Posts 632　Credits 1,987
UMBPCI really is much better than EMM386 at providing UMB, but there are too many motherboards it doesn't support. SHSUCDX is much better than MSCDEX. DISKGEN really isn't good; switch to SPFDISK.

Floor5　Roy	Posted 2003-07-09 00:00
管理员　Posts 1,633　Credits 4,869
*The following is quoted from yiyesong's post at 2003-7-9 22:45:37:* UMBPCI really is much better than EMM386 at providing UBM, but there are too many motherboards it doesn't support. SHSUCDX is much better than MSCDEX. DISKGEN really isn't good; switch to SPFDISK. It's UMB... \_____Upper \_____Memory \_____Block

Floor6　yiyesong	Posted 2003-07-10 00:00
元老会员　Posts 632　Credits 1,987
ROY, sorry, that was a typo. You're really attentive, I corrected it.

Floor7　dos时代菜鸟	Posted 2003-07-11 00:00
初级用户　Posts 216　Credits 672
Between shsucdx and mscdex version 2.23 + cloaking, which one is actually better? I think the latter uses less memory space (4k), while the former uses less disk space.

Floor8　Wengier	Posted 2003-07-11 00:00
系统支持　Posts 10,521　Credits 27,736
*The following is quoted from dos时代菜鸟's post at 2003-7-11 2:57:31:* Between shsucdx and mscdex 2.23 + cloaking, which one is actually better? I think the latter uses less memory space (4k), while the former uses less disk space. Actually, each has its own advantages.。It depends on which aspect you care about more. If you care more about disk space, then Shsucd 1.4/2.0 is better; for example, that's what I used in my fully Chinese MiniWin3.2 boot disk. But if you care more about memory usage, then Cloaking+Mscdex is better; for example, that's what I use in the Super MS-DOS 7.10 boot disk I made, as well as on my current hard disk. As for Shsucdx, its memory usage is a bit larger. Version 2.0 uses 9KB of UMB memory on my machine (I currently have two CD-ROM drives). As for compatibility, actually each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses by comparison, but due to space, I won't go into detail here~~