On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, tom ehlert wrote: > BO> MSDOS 7.10 does move the EBDA though. What MSDOS are we looking at now -- > BO> the FAT16 kernel says 5.0, and the FAT32 says 7.10 ? > > MSDOS 7.1 doesn't move it on F5 (or ctrl-F5 ? should this depend on > the kernel version ?), but seems to move in himem. > didn't research for long, as I don't consider that important.
Well MSDOS 7.1 does a *lot* by default that we don't if there is no config.sys (like trying to load himem based on msdos.sys contents) so it's a different animal anyway. The strange thing is that if you use F8 for it, then "step-by-step confirmation", and then press N N N N N the EBDA *is* relocated. And if it loads HIMEM then the EBDA is allocated before the HIMEM device driver. The same happens with HIMEM+EMM386 (no relocation to an UMB). So this animal is not only different but also a bit strange... > >> in the default setting, moving the EBDA doesn't save any memory; > >> setting switches /E:512 might enable 'MOVEEBDA' and would save low memory > > BO> Lucho had his reasons to implement it in the first place -- > It doesn't save a single byte in the default setting; it actually even > costs 16 precious bytes > only > SWITCHES /E:992 > starts to save some bytes if not moving to UMB. That is right of course. But I don't remember Lucho trying to save memory. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freedos-kernel&m=105808474521742&w=2 "Some (especially embedded) applications don't use the DOS memory manager but assume all the memory past that given to them by DOS is free for use. Some even use *absolute* addresses (e.g. to avoid DMA segment alignment problems), up to the last byte in conventional RAM (0x9ffff). Wouldn't it be better if we move the 1K EBIOS to low memory (as the MS-DOS 7.1 kernel does) to avoid such and other problems? If so, IMHO INITOEM.C is the perfect place to do this, and I can try to do it, allowing DOS use the top 1K space. (The "brute force" approach I used so far was inspired by a program called PLUS1K.SYS but it was obviously dangerous and better avoided." Obvious reply: Most users don't use "Some (especially embedded) applications". what to do now? Obviously SWITCHES=/E should not do the reverse wrt WinDOS 98 since that's really evil. How does * not move it by default * only move it with SWITCHES=/E:nnn where nnn can be "all" to get the current default behaviour. sound? > BO> I also wonder if we don't have a bug somewhere? I can't remember stories > BO> of people being forced to use "SWITCHES=/E" for Windows 98. > google for NOMOVEXBDA I see... Bart ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Robotic Monkeys at ThinkGeek For a limited time only, get FREE Ground shipping on all orders of $35 or more. Hurry up and shop folks, this offer expires April 30th! http://www.thinkgeek.com/freeshipping/?cpg=12297 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
