Apologies for my late response re: UIDE v.s. VirtualBox. Had to have
my (infected!) gall-bladder removed, 25-Jun-2011. NASTY episode, and I
am still recovering and moving a bit slow on driver work! Re: recent
EDR-DOS forum posts, I say the same as our author Mark Twain once did --
The
Op 24-7-2011 16:52, Jack schreef:
Apologies for my late response re: UIDE v.s. VirtualBox. Had to have
my (infected!) gall-bladder removed, 25-Jun-2011. NASTY episode, and I
am still recovering and moving a bit slow on driver work! Re: recent
EDR-DOS forum posts, I say the same as our
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote:
Op 24-7-2011 16:52, Jack schreef:
Apologies for my late response re: UIDE v.s. VirtualBox. Had to have
my (infected!) gall-bladder removed, 25-Jun-2011. NASTY episode, and I
am still recovering and moving a bit
Op 24-7-2011 20:26, Rugxulo schreef:
Why? I mean, sure /S5 is fine, I'm not complaining, but you *could*
use Eric's XMSSIZE:
http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/xms-size-info-xmssizer.zip
EDIT: Oh wait, that wouldn't work in CONFIG.SYS. But wait, you're
using DEVLOAD
Jack,
Except for minimal boot systems, like yours and Lucho's
multiboot diskette, I recommend a minimum of 250-MB cache
to handle todays' LARGE Windows files. Copying a 100-
MB file will take 200-MB of UIDE's cache space (input and
output), and some cache space must remain for directories
Hi Bernd,
Jack's driver only accepts certain values. This might be intentional due
to specific caching algorythms.
Using XMSSIZE I'd still have to use a lot of errorlevel stuff:
if not errorlevel 5 , then use /B /N1 /N3
if not errorlevel 10, then use /S5
if not errorlevel .. etc.
if
Eric,
Having to discard DOS directories, to make room for new
data files, is the main loss of speed when using UIDE ...
A cache might already know that the directories are more
useful because they are accessed more often ...
I did not want to add such logic in UIDE, because I dare not
Jack,
A cache might already know that the directories are more
useful because they are accessed more often ...
Sorry about the misunderstanding - I did not mean that the
cache would know what a FAT or directory is, just that those
sectors are accessed frequently, giving the cache a chance
