Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> SH> Unlike Windows 3.x, Windows 95 does not let you set up your
>> SH> CONFIG.SYS and your AUTOEXEC.BAT in such a manner so as to
>> SH> optimize for your DOS apps.
>> ??? My config files ARE optimized for DOS :)
SH> I try to optimize my CONFIG.SYS and my AUTOEXEC.BAT for use with DOS
SH> and WIN 95 ignores these files as if they weren't even there.
So you mean if you tell it to load smartdrv or some other driver, it is NOT
present when you reboot ??
I don't think that this is possible.
SH> It boots to Window$ 95 before even waiting for AUTOEXEC.BAT to
SH> complete.
add
logo=0
bootgui=0
to your msdos.sys file.
SH> With WIN 3.x I can set it up the way I want. WIN 95 doesn't even
SH> care how you want your DOS to be configured. WIN 95 doesn't even
SH> care whether you even have an AUTOEXEC.BAT and a CONFIG.SYS because
SH> it is just going to do its own stupid thing anyway. It seems that no
SH> matter how I set up my CONFIG.SYS and my AUTOEXEC.BAT, my WIN 95
SH> machine will leave me with very little DOS memory left after it
SH> boots.
Here's my memory configuration:
Name Gesamt = Konventioneller + oberer Speicher
-------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 17.568 (17K) 9.552 (9K) 8.016 (8K)
HIMEM 1.120 (1K) 1.120 (1K) 0 (0K)
EMM386 4.032 (4K) 4.032 (4K) 0 (0K)
4DOS 6.320 (6K) 432 (0K) 5.888 (6K)
...
Frei 668.128 (652K) 638.672 (624K) 29.456 (29K)
Speichertyp Gesamt = Belegt + Frei
---------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Konventionell 655.360 16.688 638.672
Oberer 158.000 128.544 29.456
So I have 638.672 bytes of conv. memory free, and 128 KB UMB in use (with
many drivers and TSRs) and 29 KB free in UMB.
SH> If I want to run Window$, I simply type the word "win" at the command
SH> line. Easy. If I want my PC to run Window$, I just simply tell it to
SH> do so.
It's the same with win95.
If you change your msdos.sys it works exactly the same.
+ you get a win32 API implementation, on which you can run programs, which
are only available for win32.
SH> Many people advocate WIN 95 over Win 3.x because it is a 32 bit
SH> operating system and therefore supposedly much more efficient.
I wouldn't care about that ... win 3.1x is not able to run many programs I
need.
SH> On the other hand, it is much more bloated and takes longer to load.
Yes ... absolutely
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> Is it ok to panic now? <=-
