From:	mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: 64 MB with EMM386
Date:	Tue, 04 Feb 1997 19:57:42 GMT
Organization:	Oxford University
Lines:	28
Message-ID:	<32f79291.23529354@news.ox.ac.uk>
References:	<581_9701301811 AT wombaz DOT robin DOT de> <32f3a001 DOT 23452098 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <32F75CF4 DOT 664B AT cam DOT org>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	mc31.merton.ox.ac.uk
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 07:59:48 -0800, Tudor <tudor AT cam DOT org> wrote:

>George Foot wrote:
>[snip]
>> When EMM386 is loaded, it is acting as your DPMI host, and appears to
>> only give you 32Mb of RAM. If you don't load it, your programs will
>> load CWSDPMI on startup, which is quite happy to give you up to 256Mb
>> (128Mb physical and 128Mb virtual). 

As Eli has pointed out, I was mistaken here - EMM386 doesn't provide
DPMI services, so my theory is wrong.

>>            The fact that you don't have much
>> base memory free shouldn't matter for DJGPP programs as they treat all
>> memory (almost) equally.

>That's a good thing :)
>But won't the virtual memory be slower than the phisical one? Just
>curious...

Yes, of course it would - hard drives are far far slower than physical
RAM. However, I doubt your average DPMI server swaps bits of RAM to
disk for fun. The points I was making above were really that under
CWSDPMI you can use almost all of your physical RAM (up to a maximum
or 128 Mb) and up to 128Mb virtual memory. I doubt that any sensible
DPMI server would swap your data to disk unnecessarily.

George

- Raw text -