Hi Jack,

>> Ah okay... So there would be a separate API, and separate
>> memory areas for XMS 2/3 and the new API then?
> 
> Absolutely!   Forgetting XMS V2.0 (only 64-MB), I am suggesting that
> all XMS V3.0 requests for 4-GB remain as-is, using the first 4-GB of
> memory.   XMS "V4.0" commands, if we choose to call them so, will be
> modified 3.0 commands to deal with memory ABOVE the first 4-GB.

Hmmm then on one hand only new apps could use XMS 4, but
on the other hand, old apps would not have any side-
effects from the existence of XMS 4 :-). Note that the
new apps will also have to use XMS 3 to get the 3 GB or
similar that will be free in the first 4 GB because no
sane XMS 3 app will use much of those 4 GB... ;-)

> If we do an XMS "V4.0" upgrade for 64-GB memory, the "scheme" used
> by "real mode" and "protected mode" should be consistent for both.

True.

>> actually do contain workarounds for Win compat ...
> 
> Still a BIG problem for drivers like UIDE wanting gigabytes of memory.

As said - Windows 3 only has a problem with descriptors
for more than 16 MB, so if you have a HIMEM or UIDE
implementation of memory-block-copy which creates the
descriptors on demand then you can easily copy 1 MB at
offset 1 GB of your 2 GB handle and still stay with all
offsets relative to the descriptor below 1 MB :-). This
is of course not cool for descriptor caching on modern
CPU, so a HIMEM could consider only activating this when
Windows is active and using "full handle" sized, fixed
offset descriptors for access at all other times :-).

Note that I am talking about CPU descriptors, not XMS
handles. Basically, apps which only use the XMS API to
copy data to/from XMS will not even notice whether they
run with a HIMEM with such a Windows limit workaround.

>> At least in Linux and Windows, a pipeline is something provided by
>> the OS kernel ...
> 
> But we are NOT Linux/Windows, are we??

So all "pipeline linked" components of the CD/DVD burn
toolkit will have to use some other API to communicate
directly with each other instead.

>> Yes and no - the metadata of the cache could be kept in the
>> easily accessible area while the data itself can be copied
>> with normal XMS driver calls without extra performance loss,
>> allowing the cache data to stay in non-lockable extra large
>> XMS above the 4 GB boundary. Of course I wonder why you do
>> want a cache of 4 GB instead of just using a RAMDISK...?
> 
> Agreed -- UIDE's cache tables and binary-search table could remain
> in normal 4-GB memory, along with its "local" 128K XMS buffer

Okay :-)

> A RAMdisk handles a more permanent set of logical FILES,
> using a normal DOS directory.

RAMDISKs are also sector-based things, not file-based, but
indeed they always contain the same sectors, without dynamic
decisions about which sectors will be in RAM and which not.

> Those who want a SCREAMING-fast DOS system will want BOTH!

They could also copy their DOS disk into a RAMDISK at boot,
possibly in the background. That would be a combination
between a cache and a ramdisk then ;-). I think there
are some shareware floppy caches working like this :-)

> Be kind -- Bernd contributes much to DOS/FreeDOS/etc. same as we do.

Sure. Just a comment on the suggestion that he should
or could write a pipeline based burn tool himself...

>> No, you just cannot create locks on NEW handles, such which
>> got allocated after Windows took over memory maintenance.
> 
> Then I hope UIDE/RDISK or other large-memory drivers DO load first!
> 
>> Enjoy working on your miracles :-)
> 
> Thanks, and you on yours ;-)


Thanks :-)

Eric


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Reply via email to