Re: RE Which Computer

[J R FOX jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

>> Robert reports that (under W2K?)
>> on many mobos the USB drivers usurp the memory
> area that should be used
>> for EMS (expanded memory; that's the kind that Xy
> officially uses

--- Robert Holmgren  replied:

> This is motherboard based -- nothing to do with the
> OpSys. Note Well: This is
> **not** about "USB drivers", it is about the USB
> BIOS!! A much narrower issue
> than you suggest, and two very different beasts.
> The USB BIOS is what allows
> you to BOOT an operating system from a USB device,
> such as a USB CD or a memory
> key or diskette. Boot! Not drive a USB device --
> you can have EMS enabled and
> simultaneously load USB drivers and operate a USB
> mouse or keyboard or
> whatever, no problem whatsoever, no conflict.

This is of interest to me, as I am presently
contemplating a mb + CPU update for my tower desktop.
I am not too familiar with the Windows way of doing
things, but it was previously my impression that -- at
least with OS/2 -- it was based on a flat-memory
model, and that these different memory designations
were kind of arbitrary, because memory would get
parceled out or simulated as required. Wasn't that
the basis for the memory settings recommendations you
cited on the List a few years ago ?

Anyway, I would like to be able to give maximum memory
to whatever may benefit from it, but I don't want to
give up any useful USB functionality in order to do
so. What remains unclear to me is whether there would
be any appreciable difference in this regard, as
between my 5 year old ASUS mb, and a contemporary
model I might substitute for it ? (I believe that I
presently have a capability to boot from USB devices.)

> No XMS is used anywhere.

O.K.

> The reason dBase and XyWrite occupy the same memory
> addresses in a MEM report
> is that they are running in different VDMs. The
> first executable would always
> launch at the same memory address in any VDM,
> assuming identical CONFIG &
> AUTOEXEC.

Makes sense to me.

> EMS is NOT virtualized in Win32. It really does
> occupy a 64Kb window at a
> specific memory location. If it was virtualized,
> there wouldn't be any
> conflict with USB BIOS.

Sounds to me like the Win-32 memory model is probably
quite different from the one employed by OS/2 | eCS.
I seemed to recall that Win-32 (also) did not allow
VXDs or Ramdrives to exist . . . but isn't Daemon
Tools a close cousin of the latter ?


Jordan