> Bertho ???,

You may call me Czerno, Herr Ehlert  

>> You can't escape having to explain what "adverse effects" you were evoking, 
>> now anyway.

> command.com is a 'normal' program. just allocating DOS memory will
> give you an environment at ~1800:0. not such a good idea.

You are joking, Herr Ehlert, richtig ?
Launching a basic FreeDOS+FreeCOM virtual machine while I'm typing...
No upper memory. Using (Jack Ellis's, I think ) XMGR.SYS.
MEM /D indicates the ENV would be at *526:0*, /not/ such a /bad idea/.
And this is /with/ VMware's BIOS 5 kilobytes EBDA relocated low, mind you.

Of course the kernel is in HMA, which may be what your reply eluded !

And EVEN if for some reason HMA was not available or not given to the DOS 
kernel, what makes you deem an environment at ~1800:0  not such a good idea ? 

I this all your deep reason for forcing the master ENV up at 9xxxx ?
In which way other than your respectable personal preference is it better? 

This is highly ridiculous. At least provide a choice. Leave it to 
power /users/ to determine for themselves what memory layout is 
best in /their/ situation.

Ah, but - sorry, I was forgetting - you /don't care/ much about your users.

No wonder you don't have many.

> usually ~9f00:0 is a much better place.
> and juggling memory around (beyond what is already done) was so far
never necessary  (and still isn't)

How do you say "arrogance" in German, Herr /Doktor/ Ehlert ?



This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to