Name: jkgeyti Date: June 25, 2005 at 13:41:58 Pacific Subject: Only 553kb conventional in TOTAL?! OS: DOS 7.10 (and Techw0rm 5. CPU/Ram: Prescott 2.8ghz / 512mb
Comment:
I have ms-dos 7.10 installed on a newer Asus machine (Asus P5S800-VM motherboard). Unfortuneatly, I have a few problems with it:
The first one I experienced was that I cannot use EMS memory. I can't use QEMM at all (the version that comes with the techworm 5.4 bootdisk). I get about 5 unhandled exceptions before it locks up (it gives a long talk about how my system might hang up if I continue, at every error). EMM386 is able to emulate EMS by using XMS:
"EMM386 is using XMS memory to simulate EMS memory as needed. Free EMS memory may change as free XMS memory changes." (mem /c quote)
But my REAL problem is that I'm missing conventional memory. Not *free* memory, but memory in total.
I really don't understand it. I've tried so many different settings. And whatever I try, it works perfectly on my main computer (a newer DFI one) - except for the fact it also has problems with EMS. But I can get 652kb of conventional memory out of it anyway:
Something similar came up in this somewhat contentious & meandering thread. Unresolved, the OP appeared to lose interest (for one thing) but the best guess was some obscure BIOS setting.
Never heard of a machine with dramatically less than 640K of conventional memory that had more than 1Mb of extended
Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Yes, well, it's a puzzling situation - invariably (well, almost, I guess) 640K low memory is made available out of the first meg of RAM - that's just how it works.
It's interesting that both of you are running relatively high end, modern machines - all that comes to mind is possibly a BIOS setting.
Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. -John Wayne
I have tried pure MS-DOS6. It's a long time ago, but I had the same problems.
As everyone now seems to agree that it's a BIOS problem, I will try and fiddle around with BIOS settings later. I will post if I find out what's causing the problems.
It does seem strange considering AMD state that there are no issues with AMD-64 CPU which in fact is only an extension of the 4004/8008/8088/8086 family of CPU's. On the other hand AMD have never gone down the Hyper Threading route of Intel, preferring the simplier? Hyper Transport:
Yes? SIS SATA on Chip I think they call it. I'm using an 160gb IDE drive though, and I've tried both enabling and disabling the controller.
But please do tell? What does it mean to my conventional memory that I have a built in SATA RAID Controller?
BTW, I realised that I can get all availble memory on the DFI comp. mentioned in the first post. It is also using a p4 prescott (3.2 ghz). So it isn't the processor after all.
============================================================== The ONLY time I have ever seen this happen on a current technology machine is when a piece of hardware takes part of the available 640k memory and uses it as a BIOS wedge. What pariphia do you have?
It's been used in all the circles I communicate in...'oficially' a word? Never checked into it; I just know its been used in place of peripheral many times with those I've spoken with...
Yes, it would have to be low and can be disabled by enabling rom holes at either 15 or 16 meg addresses. This allows the hardware to wedge in high memory rather than conventional.
The information on Computing.Net is the opinions of its users. Such
opinions may not be accurate and they are to be used at your own risk.
Computing.Net cannot verify the validity of the statements made on this site. Computing.Net and Computing.Net, LLC hereby disclaim all responsibility and liability for the content of Computing.Net and its accuracy.
PLEASE READ THE FULL DISCLAIMER AND LEGAL TERMS BY CLICKING HERE
