home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!udel!sbcs.sunysb.edu!sbstaff2!mjn
- From: mjn@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (The Sixth Replicant)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Subject: Re: DOS extended memory problem
- Keywords: dos xms extended memory
- Message-ID: <1992Aug20.164234.25947@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: 20 Aug 92 16:42:34 GMT
- References: <100@slpfs1.UUCP>
- Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
- Organization: Tyrell Corp.
- Lines: 25
- Nntp-Posting-Host: sbstaff2
-
- In article <100@slpfs1.UUCP> jct@slpfs1.UUCP (Jeff Tolmie) writes:
- >
- >Hi All,
- >
- > I have a question about DOS compatibility. Recently, I copied jpeg3386
- >from a MSDOS net and tried to get it to run. It thinks I have no extended
- >memory. So I opened a DOS fullscreen and typed "mem". Now, OS/2 tells me that
- >I have 2Mb XMS memory and 0 Mb contiguous extended memory available. This I
- >find a bit confusing. Does anyone know what the difference is? I can adjust
- >the XMS value via the DOS settings, but not this "contiguous extended memory".
- >
- > The only thing I can think of is perhaps this 2nd value is what OS/2
- >calculates as the usable memory. Is perhaps a device driver getting in the
- >way? (The memory management from DOS is a JOKE!).
-
- I've noticed the same thing with mem: it always reports 0K contiguous in OS/2.
- However, I have a number of programs which use XMS calls directly and I can
- report that the XMS 0x09 function which reports #K free and largest
- contiguous blocks does report reasonable numbers, i.e. at the start of
- a DOS session, both are equal to the value I set in the DOS Settings. I
- can only imagine that mem is doing something un-kosher, ununusual, or
- incorrect.
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Marc Neuberger mjn@sbcs.sunysb.edu
-