L.D.,
Are you speaking of the file size differences between the 2 versions?
If so, I'm sorry to say that there's a problem in your math.
File size does not determine memory requirements.
A program _might_ use more memory than the file size.
EPPPD.EXE 49258 9-19-97 9:39p
02F4:0000 EPPPD 11210h 70,160 Program
Or it _might_ use less.
DRMOUSE.COM 17559 9-03-98 12:15p
FD4F:0000 DRMOUSE 1990h 6,544 Program
BTW, EPPPD does not load high on my system because......
Memory Type Total Bytes ( Kbytes ) Available For Programs
Conventional 655,360 ( 640K ) 566,784 ( 554K )
Upper 307,040 ( 300K ) 128,112 ( 125K )
High 65,520 ( 64K ) 3,096 ( 3K )
Extended 66,060,288 ( 64,512K ) 0 ( 0K )
Extended via XMS -------- 15,718,400 ( 15,350K )
EMS 83,017,728 ( 81,072K ) 15,728,640 ( 15,360K )
Largest executable program: 566,752 ( 553K ) �
Total Free DOS memory: 694,896 ( 679K ) �
(it would be nice if EPPPD could load into "upper" as a second choice)
On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 16:02:53 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> 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/
--
Glenn McCorkle mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Jackson, Ohio, USA
Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS
Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed.
http://home.arachne.cz/ or http://arachne.browser.org/
