|
johnsonlam
银牌会员
阿林
积分 1410
发帖 497
注册 2004-6-28
来自 九龍，香港
状态 离线
|
『楼 主』:
QDMA / QCACHE V3.6 (2006-10-09)
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
2006-10-09
- QDBOOT is now "general purpose", to support SATA and other disks for UMBPCI! QDBOOT takes only 32 low memory bytes! No run-time QCACHE/QDMA changes.
----
QDBOOT 已 变 成 一 般 常 用 程 序 ( 已 不 是 专 为 QDMA 而 设 ) ， 为 了 在 UMBPCI 下 支 援 SATA 作 出 了 些 修 改 ( QDMA 仍 未 有 SATA 支 援 ， 只 有 QCACHE 可 以 ) 。
QDBOOT 现 在 只 在 传 统 记 忆 体 占 32 bytes ! QDMA 和 QCACHE 没 有 改 动 。
Last edited by johnsonlam on 2006-10-11 at 05:27 ]
2006-10-09
- QDBOOT is now "general purpose", to support SATA and other disks for UMBPCI! QDBOOT takes only 32 low memory bytes! No run-time QCACHE/QDMA changes.
----
QDBOOT has become a general-purpose program (no longer dedicated to QDMA), and some modifications have been made to support SATA under UMBPCI (QDMA still does not support SATA, only QCACHE does).
QDBOOT now only occupies 32 bytes in conventional memory! There are no changes to QDMA and QCACHE.
Last edited by johnsonlam on 2006-10-11 at 05:27 ]
|
我 的 網 站 - http://optimizr.dyndns.org
|
|
 2006-10-11 05:25 |
|
|
weilong888
银牌会员
积分 1270
发帖 548
注册 2004-5-31
状态 离线
|
|
|
2006-10-11 09:05 |
|
|
fastslz
铂金会员
DOS一根葱
积分 5493
发帖 2315
注册 2006-5-1
来自 上海
状态 离线
|
『第 3 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
测试QCACHE V3.6能在我的主板启动后，又测试了QHIMEM也能胜利加载。我的VIA P4X266 VL33-S即QCACHE V3.6、QHIMEM V3.1后终于能使用Q全系列了，请johnsonlam转告Jack这一消息，这一项突破意味着Q全系列兼容VIA有了更深一层。
简单描述下各版本测试情况：
QCACHE V3.4 启动过程中未看见提示直接重启
QCACHE V3.5 未做测试
QCACHE V3.6 启动后未见异常
QHIMEM2.8或2.9 之前任何参数都不能启动
QHIMEM3.0 未做测试
QHIMEM3.1 任何参数都能启动，启动后异常不能确定（可能我配置参数有误）
也就是说QCACHE V3.4～V3.6和QHIMEM2.8～3.1之间的变化，这些版本之间的差别对比可能对 Jack 有用
测试用参数：
DEVICE=DOS\QHMBOOT.SYS
DEVICE=DOS\QDBOOT.SYS
DEVICE=DOS\QHIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=DOS\UMBPCI.SYS NOEMS
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\LOWDMA.SYS
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QDREL.SYS
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QCDROM.SYS /D:IDE-CD01 /UF /L
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QDMA.SYS /K /L
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QCACHE.SYS
SHELL=COMMAND.COM /E:1024 /P /F
DOS=HIGH,UMB,AUTO
FCBSHIGH=4,0
FILESHIGH=30
BUFFERSHIGH=20,0
STACKSHIGH=9,256
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\RAMDRIVE.SYS /E 8192
LASTDRIVEHIGH=Z
MEM数据：
1 Mb 以下使用内存的模块:
名称 总计 = 常规内存 + 上位内存
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 18,160 (18K) 9,840 (10K) 8,320 (8K)
QHMBOOT 64 (0K) 64 (0K) 0 (0K)
QDBOOT 880 (1K) 880 (1K) 0 (0K)
QHIMEM 1,904 (2K) 1,904 (2K) 0 (0K)
UMBPCI 160 (0K) 160 (0K) 0 (0K)
TW 47,216 (46K) 38,800 (38K) 8,416 (8K)
QCDROM 2,304 (2K) 0 (0K) 2,304 (2K)
QDMA 1,088 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,088 (1K)
QCACHE 3,376 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,376 (3K)
RAMDRIVE 1,440 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,440 (1K)
SHCDX33A 6,048 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,048 (6K)
DOSLFN 28,816 (28K) 0 (0K) 28,816 (28K)
ZENO 1,376 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,376 (1K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
COMMAND 10,752 (11K) 0 (0K) 10,752 (11K)
CTMOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
FREE 597,152 (583K) 594,480 (581K) 2,672 (3K)
内存总计:
内存类型 总共 = 已使用 + 空闲
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
常规内存 646,144 51,664 594,480
上位内存 81,904 79,232 2,672
保留内存 320,528 320,528 0
扩展内存 (XMS) 66,060,288 4,105,764,8 255,262,720
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
总内存 67,108,864 4,106,216,2 255,859,872
1 MB 以下内存数 728,048 130,896 597,152
总计扩充内存 (XMS) 66,060,288 (64,512K)
空闲扩充内存 (XMS) 255,262,720 (249,280K)
最大可执行程序尺寸 594,176 (580K)
最大空闲上位内存块 2,224 (2K)
空闲高内存区数 288 (0K)
MS-DOS 驻留在高位内存区中.
唯一疑问；扩展内存 (XMS) 数总共为什么是66,060,288而不是 （已使用 + 空闲数的总和）；也就是之前说的不能确定异常情况。也试着用README.EXE推荐配置都有(XMS) 数不符的情况，请johnsonlam看下是否有更好的配置方法？
哦、补充说明上面的测试参数：在未加载SMARTDRV.EXE情况下进行594MB大小文件复制测试用时46.5秒。
Last edited by fastslz on 2006-10-12 at 13:46 ]
Tested QCACHE V3.6 and it could boot on my motherboard. Then tested QHIMEM and it loaded successfully. After that, with my VIA P4X266 VL33-S, QCACHE V3.6 and QHIMEM V3.1, I finally could use the Q series. Please inform Johnsonlam to tell Jack this news. This breakthrough means that the Q series has deeper compatibility with VIA.
Brief description of the testing situations of each version:
QCACHE V3.4: Rebooted without seeing prompts during the boot process
QCACHE V3.5: Not tested
QCACHE V3.6: No abnormal situation seen after boot
QHIMEM 2.8 or 2.9: Could not boot with any parameters before
QHIMEM 3.0: Not tested
QHIMEM 3.1: Could boot with any parameters, but abnormal situation after boot could not be determined (maybe I configured parameters incorrectly)
That is to say, the changes between QCACHE V3.4～V3.6 and QHIMEM 2.8～3.1, the difference comparison between these versions may be useful to Jack
Testing parameters:
DEVICE=DOS\QHMBOOT.SYS
DEVICE=DOS\QDBOOT.SYS
DEVICE=DOS\QHIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=DOS\UMBPCI.SYS NOEMS
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\LOWDMA.SYS
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QDREL.SYS
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QCDROM.SYS /D:IDE-CD01 /UF /L
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QDMA.SYS /K /L
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\QCACHE.SYS
SHELL=COMMAND.COM /E:1024 /P /F
DOS=HIGH,UMB,AUTO
FCBSHIGH=4,0
FILESHIGH=30
BUFFERSHIGH=20,0
STACKSHIGH=9,256
DEVICEHIGH=DOS\RAMDRIVE.SYS /E 8192
LASTDRIVEHIGH=Z
Memory data:
Memory modules using less than 1 Mb:
Name Total = Conventional Memory + Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 18,160 (18K) 9,840 (10K) 8,320 (8K)
QHMBOOT 64 (0K) 64 (0K) 0 (0K)
QDBOOT 880 (1K) 880 (1K) 0 (0K)
QHIMEM 1,904 (2K) 1,904 (2K) 0 (0K)
UMBPCI 160 (0K) 160 (0K) 0 (0K)
TW 47,216 (46K) 38,800 (38K) 8,416 (8K)
QCDROM 2,304 (2K) 0 (0K) 2,304 (2K)
QDMA 1,088 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,088 (1K)
QCACHE 3,376 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,376 (3K)
RAMDRIVE 1,440 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,440 (1K)
SHCDX33A 6,048 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,048 (6K)
DOSLFN 28,816 (28K) 0 (0K) 28,816 (28K)
ZENO 1,376 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,376 (1K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
COMMAND 10,752 (11K) 0 (0K) 10,752 (11K)
CTMOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
FREE 597,152 (583K) 594,480 (581K) 2,672 (3K)
Total memory:
Memory Type Total = Used + Free
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Conventional Memory 646,144 51,664 594,480
Upper Memory 81,904 79,232 2,672
Reserved Memory 320,528 320,528 0
Extended Memory (XMS) 66,060,288 4,105,764,8 255,262,720
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Total Memory 67,108,864 4,106,216,2 255,859,872
Memory below 1 MB 728,048 130,896 597,152
Total Extended Memory (XMS) 66,060,288 (64,512K)
Free Extended Memory (XMS) 255,262,720 (249,280K)
Maximum Executable Program Size 594,176 (580K)
Maximum Free Upper Memory Block 2,224 (2K)
Number of Free High Memory Blocks 288 (0K)
MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.
Only question: Why is the total Extended Memory (XMS) 66,060,288 instead of the sum of used and free? That is to say, the abnormal situation could not be determined before. Also, there was a situation where the XMS number did not match when using the configuration recommended by README.EXE. Please let Johnsonlam see if there is a better configuration method?
Oh, supplement the above testing parameters: Copied a 594MB file without loading SMARTDRV.EXE and it took 46.5 seconds.
Last edited by fastslz on 2006-10-12 at 13:46 ]
|
第一高手 第二高手
我的小站
 |
|
|
2006-10-12 13:25 |
|
|
darkradx
高级用户
积分 972
发帖 420
注册 2004-5-16
状态 离线
|
『第 4 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
哪个版本的mem得到的数据啊?建议用Freedos1.0里面的(举个例子:MS710的MEM就无法读FDXXMS的XMS信息, Freedos的就可以)
MEM程序如果INT15/XMS3.0(XMS16)/(XMS3.0)XMS32三种接口混合使用取内存信息的话, 会出现数值不符吧
Which version of MEM gets the data? It is recommended to use the one in FreeDOS 1.0 (for example: MEM of MS710 cannot read XMS information of FDXXMS, but MEM of FreeDOS can). If the MEM program uses a mixed use of INT15/XMS3.0 (XMS16)/(XMS3.0) XMS32 interfaces to obtain memory information, there will be inconsistent values, right?
|
平生进退如飙风 |
|
|
2006-10-12 15:09 |
|
|
fastslz
铂金会员
DOS一根葱
积分 5493
发帖 2315
注册 2006-5-1
来自 上海
状态 离线
|
『第 5 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
标准版MS-DOS 7.1里面的MEM，且用HIMEM.SYS时显示的(XMS) 总数是正确的
The total number of (XMS) displayed when using HIMEM.SYS in the standard version of MS-DOS 7.1 is correct
|
第一高手 第二高手
我的小站
|
|
|
2006-10-12 21:40 |
|
|
Wengier
系统支持
“新DOS时代”站长
积分 27736
发帖 10521
注册 2002-10-9
状态 离线
|
『第 6 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 09:40 PM:
标准版MS-DOS 7.1里面的MEM，且用HIMEM.SYS时显示的(XMS) 总数是正确的
这个MEM有一个我早已发现的特点，那就是如果它检测到INT2F的AX=1600号功能为非0的时候（比如WIN运行时或在HDPMI32加载后）会将总XMS内存最大显示为64MB，而剩余XMS内存则正确；如果INT2F的AX=1600号功能为0的时候（如通常的实模式DOS下等等）则两项均正常显示。由此可见，这仅仅是MEM显示的问题，而总XMS内存并不是说只有64MB。我觉得这有可能其设计者有意这样设计的，比如说在某些环境下为了某种兼容性（？）。
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 09:40 PM:
The total number of (XMS) displayed by MEM in standard MS-DOS 7.1 when using HIMEM.SYS is correct
This MEM has a feature that I have long discovered: that is, if it detects that the AX=1600 function of INT2F is non-zero (such as when WIN is running or after HDPMI32 is loaded), it will display the maximum total XMS memory as 64MB, while the remaining XMS memory is displayed correctly; if the AX=1600 function of INT2F is 0 (such as in normal real-mode DOS, etc.), both items are displayed normally. It can be seen that this is only a display problem of MEM, and the total XMS memory is not said to be only 64MB. I think this may be designed intentionally by its designer, for example, for some compatibility in certain environments (?).
|
Wengier - 新DOS时代
欢迎大家来到我的“新DOS时代”网站，里面有各类DOS软件和资料，地址：
http://wendos.mycool.net/
E-Mail & MSN: wengierwu AT hotmail.com （最近比较忙，有事请联系DOSroot和雨露，谢谢！）
 |
|
|
2006-10-12 21:58 |
|
|
fastslz
铂金会员
DOS一根葱
积分 5493
发帖 2315
注册 2006-5-1
来自 上海
状态 离线
|
『第 7 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
谢谢站长解答
Re:darkradx
我对Freedos1.0不感冒一下子找个Freedos1.0版的MEM还真不容易 
Thanks to the webmaster for the explanation
Re: darkradx
I'm not interested in Freedos 1.0. It's really not easy to find a MEM for Freedos 1.0 version at once :D
|
第一高手 第二高手
我的小站
|
|
|
2006-10-12 22:22 |
|
|
Wengier
系统支持
“新DOS时代”站长
积分 27736
发帖 10521
注册 2002-10-9
状态 离线
|
『第 8 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 10:22 PM:
谢谢站长解答
Re:darkradx
我对Freedos1.0不感冒一下子找个Freedos1.0版的MEM还真不容易:D
fastslz不妨试试DOS完整版中的MEM（已上传到附件中），这个应该正确能显示出总XMS内存的：
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-10 10:22 PM:
Thanks to the webmaster for the answer
Re:darkradx
I'm not interested in Freedos 1.0. It's really not easy to find a version of Freedos 1.0's MEM :D
Why not try the MEM from the full DOS version (attached), this should correctly show the total XMS memory:
附件
1:  MEM.EXE (2006-10-12 22:32, 14.5 KiB, 下载附件所需积分 1 点
,下载次数： 22)
|
Wengier - 新DOS时代
欢迎大家来到我的“新DOS时代”网站，里面有各类DOS软件和资料，地址：
http://wendos.mycool.net/
E-Mail & MSN: wengierwu AT hotmail.com （最近比较忙，有事请联系DOSroot和雨露，谢谢！）
|
|
|
2006-10-12 22:32 |
|
|
fastslz
铂金会员
DOS一根葱
积分 5493
发帖 2315
注册 2006-5-1
来自 上海
状态 离线
|
『第 9 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
这个MEM和我之前用的MEM MD5校验值不同，得出的数据还是一样的不能显示出总XMS内存。
用Freedos1.0的MEM：
Modules using memory below 1 MB:
Name Total Conventional Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 18,160 (18K) 9,840 (10K) 8,320 (8K)
QHMBOOT 80 (0K) 80 (0K) 0 (0K)
QDBOOT 896 (1K) 896 (1K) 0 (0K)
QHIMEM 1,920 (2K) 1,920 (2K) 0 (0K)
UMBPCI 176 (0K) 176 (0K) 0 (0K)
TW 47,216 (46K) 38,800 (38K) 8,416 (8K)
QCDROM 2,320 (2K) 0 (0K) 2,320 (2K)
QDMA 1,104 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,104 (1K)
QCACHE 3,392 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,392 (3K)
RAMDRIVE 1,456 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,456 (1K)
SHCDX33A 6,048 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,048 (6K)
DOSLFN 28,816 (28K) 0 (0K) 28,816 (28K)
ZENO 1,376 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,376 (1K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
COMMAND 10,752 (11K) 0 (0K) 10,752 (11K)
CTMOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
Free 596,864 (583K) 594,192 (580K) 2,672 (3K)
Memory Type Total Used Free
---------------- -------- -------- --------
Conventional 631K 51K 580K
Upper 80K 77K 3K
Reserved 313K 313K 0K
Extended (XMS) 258,176K 8,896K 249,280K
---------------- -------- -------- --------
Total memory 259,200K 9,337K 249,863K
Total under 1 MB 711K 128K 583K
Largest executable program size 580K (594,176 bytes)
Largest free upper memory block 2K ( 2,224 bytes)
Windows is resident in the high memory area.
This MEM has a different MD5 checksum from the one I used before, and the data obtained still can't display the total XMS memory.
Using MEM of FreeDOS 1.0:
Modules using memory below 1 MB:
Name Total Conventional Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 18,160 (18K) 9,840 (10K) 8,320 (8K)
QHMBOOT 80 (0K) 80 (0K) 0 (0K)
QDBOOT 896 (1K) 896 (1K) 0 (0K)
QHIMEM 1,920 (2K) 1,920 (2K) 0 (0K)
UMBPCI 176 (0K) 176 (0K) 0 (0K)
TW 47,216 (46K) 38,800 (38K) 8,416 (8K)
QCDROM 2,320 (2K) 0 (0K) 2,320 (2K)
QDMA 1,104 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,104 (1K)
QCACHE 3,392 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,392 (3K)
RAMDRIVE 1,456 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,456 (1K)
SHCDX33A 6,048 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,048 (6K)
DOSLFN 28,816 (28K) 0 (0K) 28,816 (28K)
ZENO 1,376 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,376 (1K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
COMMAND 10,752 (11K) 0 (0K) 10,752 (11K)
CTMOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
Free 596,864 (583K) 594,192 (580K) 2,672 (3K)
Memory Type Total Used Free
---------------- -------- -------- --------
Conventional 631K 51K 580K
Upper 80K 77K 3K
Reserved 313K 313K 0K
Extended (XMS) 258,176K 8,896K 249,280K
---------------- -------- -------- --------
Total memory 259,200K 9,337K 249,863K
Total under 1 MB 711K 128K 583K
Largest executable program size 580K (594,176 bytes)
Largest free upper memory block 2K ( 2,224 bytes)
Windows is resident in the high memory area.
|
第一高手 第二高手
我的小站
|
|
|
2006-10-12 22:54 |
|
|
Wengier
系统支持
“新DOS时代”站长
积分 27736
发帖 10521
注册 2002-10-9
状态 离线
|
『第 10 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
可见如我上面所说这纯粹是MEM的显示问题，跟系统的实际总内存情况无关。不过上面这个MEM似乎也有个显示的小BUG，明明WIN没有运行甚至根本没有安装，却说“Windows is resident in the high memory area.”。
It can be seen that, as I said above, this is purely a display problem of MEM and has nothing to do with the actual total memory situation of the system. However, there seems to be a small display bug in the above MEM. It says "Windows is resident in the high memory area." even though Windows is not running or not installed at all.
|
Wengier - 新DOS时代
欢迎大家来到我的“新DOS时代”网站，里面有各类DOS软件和资料，地址：
http://wendos.mycool.net/
E-Mail & MSN: wengierwu AT hotmail.com （最近比较忙，有事请联系DOSroot和雨露，谢谢！）
|
|
|
2006-10-12 23:03 |
|
|
fastslz
铂金会员
DOS一根葱
积分 5493
发帖 2315
注册 2006-5-1
来自 上海
状态 离线
|
『第 11 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
理解了，确实只是MEM的显示问题。
另外测试：用HIMEME.SYS并加载HDPMI32后，显示XMS的总数还是正确的，也就加载QHIMEME.SYS后显示不正常
1 Mb 以下使用内存的模块:
名称 总计 = 常规内存 + 上位内存
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 28,880 (28K) 9,872 (10K) 19,008 (19K)
HIMEM 1,152 (1K) 1,152 (1K) 0 (0K)
UMBPCI 160 (0K) 160 (0K) 0 (0K)
LOWDMA 672 (1K) 672 (1K) 0 (0K)
QCDROM 2,304 (2K) 2,304 (2K) 0 (0K)
QDMA 1,088 (1K) 1,088 (1K) 0 (0K)
QCACHE 3,376 (3K) 3,376 (3K) 0 (0K)
NDOS 34,576 (34K) 34,048 (33K) 528 (1K)
TW 43,936 (43K) 38,800 (38K) 5,136 (5K)
HDPMI32 13,056 (13K) 13,056 (13K) 0 (0K)
RAMDRIVE 1,440 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,440 (1K)
SHCDX33A 6,048 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,048 (6K)
DOSLFN 28,816 (28K) 0 (0K) 28,816 (28K)
ZENO 1,376 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,376 (1K)
CTMOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
COMMAND 7,808 (8K) 0 (0K) 7,808 (8K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
FREE 546,048 (533K) 541,600 (529K) 4,448 (4K)
内存总计:
内存类型 总共 = 已使用 + 空闲
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
常规内存 646,144 104,544 541,600
上位内存 81,904 77,456 4,448
保留内存 189,456 189,456 0
扩展内存 (XMS) 264,372,224 13,094,912 251,277,312
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
总内存 265,289,728 13,466,368 251,823,360
1 MB 以下内存数 728,048 182,000 546,048
总计扩充内存 (XMS) 264,372,224 (258,176K)
空闲扩充内存 (XMS) 251,277,312 (245,388K)
最大可执行程序尺寸 540,848 (528K)
最大空闲上位内存块 4,000 (4K)
空闲高内存区数 5,328 (5K)
MS-DOS 驻留在高位内存区中.
Understood, it's indeed just a display issue with MEM.
In addition, the test: when using HIMEME.SYS and loading HDPMI32, the total number of XMS displayed is still correct, that is, after loading QHIMEME.SYS, the display is abnormal
Modules using memory below 1 Mb:
Name Total = Conventional Memory + Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 28,880 (28K) 9,872 (10K) 19,008 (19K)
HIMEM 1,152 (1K) 1,152 (1K) 0 (0K)
UMBPCI 160 (0K) 160 (0K) 0 (0K)
LOWDMA 672 (1K) 672 (1K) 0 (0K)
QCDROM 2,304 (2K) 2,304 (2K) 0 (0K)
QDMA 1,088 (1K) 1,088 (1K) 0 (0K)
QCACHE 3,376 (3K) 3,376 (3K) 0 (0K)
NDOS 34,576 (34K) 34,048 (33K) 528 (1K)
TW 43,936 (43K) 38,800 (38K) 5,136 (5K)
HDPMI32 13,056 (13K) 13,056 (13K) 0 (0K)
RAMDRIVE 1,440 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,440 (1K)
SHCDX33A 6,048 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,048 (6K)
DOSLFN 28,816 (28K) 0 (0K) 28,816 (28K)
ZENO 1,376 (1K) 0 (0K) 1,376 (1K)
CTMOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
COMMAND 7,808 (8K) 0 (0K) 7,808 (8K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
FREE 546,048 (533K) 541,600 (529K) 4,448 (4K)
Total memory:
Memory Type Total = Used + Free
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Conventional Memory 646,144 104,544 541,600
Upper Memory 81,904 77,456 4,448
Reserved Memory 189,456 189,456 0
Extended Memory (XMS) 264,372,224 13,094,912 251,277,312
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Total Memory 265,289,728 13,466,368 251,823,360
Number of memory below 1 MB 728,048 182,000 546,048
Total Extended Memory (XMS) 264,372,224 (258,176K)
Free Extended Memory (XMS) 251,277,312 (245,388K)
Maximum executable program size 540,848 (528K)
Maximum free upper memory block 4,000 (4K)
Number of free high memory blocks 5,328 (5K)
MS-DOS is resident in the upper memory area.
|
第一高手 第二高手
我的小站
|
|
|
2006-10-12 23:29 |
|
|
Wengier
系统支持
“新DOS时代”站长
积分 27736
发帖 10521
注册 2002-10-9
状态 离线
|
『第 12 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 11:29 PM:
理解了，确实只是MEM的显示问题。
另外测试：用HIMEME.SYS并加载HDPMI32后，显示XMS的总数还是正确的，也就加载QHIMEME.SYS后显示不正常
在HIMEME.SYS并加载HDPMI32后的情况下，就要看是哪个MEM了吧？印象中前面那两个MEM的显示结果是不同的（其中前者，即你最开始用的那个会显示为64MB，除非设置HDPMI=16384；而后者，即上面附件中上传的那个则正确）。
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 11:29 PM:
Understood, it's indeed just a display issue with MEM.
In addition, testing: when using HIMEME.SYS and loading HDPMI32, the total number of XMS displayed is still correct, that is, the display is abnormal after loading QHIMEME.SYS
Under the condition of HIMEME.SYS and loading HDPMI32, we need to see which MEM it is? I remember that the display results of the first two MEMs are different (the former, that is, the one you initially used will display as 64MB, unless HDPMI=16384 is set; while the latter, that is, the one uploaded in the above attachment is correct).
|
Wengier - 新DOS时代
欢迎大家来到我的“新DOS时代”网站，里面有各类DOS软件和资料，地址：
http://wendos.mycool.net/
E-Mail & MSN: wengierwu AT hotmail.com （最近比较忙，有事请联系DOSroot和雨露，谢谢！）
|
|
|
2006-10-12 23:47 |
|
|
fastslz
铂金会员
DOS一根葱
积分 5493
发帖 2315
注册 2006-5-1
来自 上海
状态 离线
|
『第 13 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
站长不好意思了，我没有注明，我用的是了之前的MEM，也没设置HDPMI=16384，就你最新加载ifs方法。
HDPMI32
NDOS -LFN -MOUNTALL -CP:936
DRVLIST.EXE
附上我用的MEM
原附件已被作者删除~~~~
Last edited by fastslz on 2006-11-8 at 02:39 PM ]
Webmaster, I'm sorry. I didn't note it. I used the previous MEM and didn't set HDPMI=16384, just your latest method of loading ifs.
HDPMI32
NDOS -LFN -MOUNTALL -CP:936
DRVLIST.EXE
Attached is the MEM I used
The original attachment has been deleted by the author~~~~
Last edited by fastslz on 2006-11-8 at 02:39 PM ]
|
第一高手 第二高手
我的小站
|
|
|
2006-10-12 23:56 |
|
|
Wengier
系统支持
“新DOS时代”站长
积分 27736
发帖 10521
注册 2002-10-9
状态 离线
|
『第 14 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 11:56 PM:
站长不好意思了，我没有注明，我用的是了之前的MEM，也没设置HDPMI=16384，就你最新加载ifs方法。
HDPMI32
NDOS -LFN -MOUNTALL -CP:936
DRVLIST.EXE
附上我用� ...
嗯，看来你上传的这个MEM和我说的那个“前者”所指并不相同。若你试试下面附件中的MEM就应该能看出区别了。
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 11:56 PM:
Sorry, webmaster. I didn't note it. I used the previous MEM and didn't set HDPMI=16384, just used your latest method of loading IFS.
HDPMI32
NDOS -LFN -MOUNTALL -CP:936
DRVLIST.EXE
Attached is what I used...
Well, it seems that the MEM you uploaded is not the same as the "former" one I mentioned. If you try the MEM in the following attachment, you should be able to see the difference.
附件
1:  MEM.ZIP (2006-10-13 00:14, 19.06 KiB, 下载附件所需积分 1 点
,下载次数： 12)
|
Wengier - 新DOS时代
欢迎大家来到我的“新DOS时代”网站，里面有各类DOS软件和资料，地址：
http://wendos.mycool.net/
E-Mail & MSN: wengierwu AT hotmail.com （最近比较忙，有事请联系DOSroot和雨露，谢谢！）
|
|
|
2006-10-13 00:14 |
|
|
johnsonlam
银牌会员
阿林
积分 1410
发帖 497
注册 2004-6-28
来自 九龍，香港
状态 离线
|
『第 15 楼』:
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 11:56 PM:
站长不好意思了，我没有注明，我用的是了之前的MEM，也没设置HDPMI=16384，就你最新加载ifs方法。
你 的 QDBOOT v3.6 占 880 bytes 即 是 CONFIG.SYS 內 次 序 排 错 了 ， 请 小 心 看 看 QDMA 的 README ， 配 合 QDREL 后 QDBOOT 不 该 占 880 bytes 那 么 多 !
還 有 ， 由 於 QHIMEM.SYS 為 了 省 記 憶 ， XMS handle 查 表 只 是 7 bit ， 除 了 FreeDOS MEM 能 夠 正 確 顯 示 ， 其 它 如 MI.COM 會 偵 錯 !
要 是 你 在 意 ， 可 以 用 QHIMEM2.SYS ， 它 是 與 M$ 的 HIMEM 一 樣 ， 使 用 10 bit handle 的
Last edited by johnsonlam on 2006-10-13 at 02:12 ]
Originally posted by fastslz at 2006-10-12 11:56 PM:
Sorry, webmaster. I didn't note it. I used the previous MEM and didn't set HDPMI=16384, just your latest method of loading IFS.
Your QDBOOT v3.6 takes 880 bytes, which means the order in CONFIG.SYS is wrong. Please carefully check the QDMA README. After matching with QDREL, QDBOOT should not take so many 880 bytes!
Also, because QHIMEM.SYS saves memory, the XMS handle lookup table is only 7-bit. Except that FreeDOS MEM can correctly display, others like MI.COM will detect errors!
If you care, you can use QHIMEM2.SYS, which is the same as M$'s HIMEM, using 10-bit handle
Last edited by johnsonlam on 2006-10-13 at 02:12 ]
|
我 的 網 站 - http://optimizr.dyndns.org
|
|
|
2006-10-13 02:08 |
|
|
