Have to admit it -- I thought this was all so much bunk, of little
consequence, etc.
Then I went and did a quick check, and was flabbergasted! I have DOS
5.0 and 6.22, and both have HIMEM.SYS. The 5.0 version is about 11K,
while the 6.22 version is almost 30K!! That could be the difference
between being able to run Arachne and not being able to.
However, if a person has to load SETVER to run the 5.0 v of HIMEM in an
otherwise 6.x version of DOS, will there be any saving of memory? Well,
I couldn't leave that question hanging so did another check. SETVER.EXE
v. 6.22 is 12,015 bytes -- that's only 8 bytes bigger than v 5.0. Doing
a bit of math, it would seem that there is a savings in memory even if
you have to use SETVER.
29K - 11K = ~18K possible savings in memory using v 5.0 HIMEM
- 12K if you have to use SETVER to use " " " " " "
-----
Leaving ~6K net savings in memory by using older version HIMEM
I knew there were a couple of good reasons I persist in running DOS 5.0
when I could move "upward"; this discovery today verifies I am
apparently doing the right thing.
l.d.
====
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 21:54:53 +0100 (MET), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Sam Heywood wrote:
>> Do any of you folks know if there are different versions of
>> HIMEM.SYS?
> Sure, for instance the switch "/TestMem:Off" isn't available on all
> (MS-DOS, dunno about the others)
>> If there are different versions, which versions work with which
>> versions of DOS?
> I think any will work. I haven't heard of a .sys file that required any
> certain version (but if so it could be fixed with "setver").
>> Do any of you know of a download site for HIMEM.SYS?
> Nope, try to find complete downloads of DOS if you want it.
> Why do you ask? Perhaps someone use less memmory then the other? The hunt
> for the almighty free byte in low memmory continues...
> //Bernie
> http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
-- Arachne V1.50;s.r.c., NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://home.arachne.cz/
