>> Rugxulo, I REALLY think you should check AGAIN running JEMM386
>> without "NOEMS" -- worked fine for me!
> In the past I always had EMM386 enabled, and it worked fine. In fact,
> some apps explicitly needed EMS and/or EMM386. But nowadays, FreeDOS
> is so good at keep low RAM free that I don't need UMBs for average
> stuff, esp. not DJGPP/DPMI things, so I would only do "JEMM386 LOAD"
> and "UNLOAD" at runtime if needed (rarely).

Never HEARD of "loading and unloading" JEMMEX/JEMM386, which in fact
never DID work properly with MS-DOS EMM386 (or maybe they found very
early that UNLOADING it was DANGEROUS!!).   Same as I noted for UIDE
and UIDE2, why would you EVER want to unload the "JEMM" drivers, for
they take so little memory and are thus "invisible" in normal use??

> My point was that JEMMEX is basically just HIMEMX + JEMM386 bound
> together, and you can't just load at runtime (if XMS already enabled)
> because it only uses its own XMS manager built-in. So while it saves a
> few kb of space by combining them, it's slightly less useful if you
> don't want EMS or UMBs (and/or have a very rare app that refuses to
> run under V86 mode). Also I very vaguely remember some apps in the old
> days not working correctly with NOEMS.

Such apps ought to be RETIRED, if they are so "incompatible".   And if
anyone truly HAS a serious "need" for unloading JEMMEX, they should be
using HIMEMX + JEMM386 (or my own XMGR + JEMM386), since in that case,
unloading at-least JEMM386 can be done a LOT more easily!ought to use

> Long story short:  heh, 30+ years of compatibility can be a pain. But
> it's much easier to use (for me) than the alternatives.   ;-)

Actually, only about 15 years of compatibility, since the first EMM386
did not appear until about 1990, and 386MAX was around only from 1988.
But, I agree:  For most people, JEMMEX is "The Lazy Man's Way" to have
"V86 protected mode" on a DOS system -- Only ONE extra driver needed!

This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to