Hi,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Zbigniew wrote:
> 2014-06-30 19:19 GMT+02:00, Rugxulo :
>
>> IIRC, 4DOS can swap out (since it's quite large) to conserve
>> conventional memory. You may have to change that setting (SWAPPING ??
>> I forget ...). I don't think it's something inherently wrong
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Zbigniew wrote:
> 2014-06-30 19:19 GMT+02:00, Rugxulo :
>
>> IIRC, 4DOS can swap out (since it's quite large) to conserve
>> conventional memory. You may have to change that setting (SWAPPING ??
>> I forget ...). I don't think it's something inherently wrong with
>
2014-06-30 19:19 GMT+02:00, Rugxulo :
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Zbigniew wrote:
>>
>> No, no such exotic options,
>
> Well, I would maybe recommend "I=TEST X=TEST".
I used - and still use - exactly the two above.
> IIRC, 4DOS can swap out (since it's quite large) to conserve
> c
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Zbigniew wrote:
>
> No, no such exotic options,
Well, I would maybe recommend "I=TEST X=TEST".
> and using JEMM386 didn't help
Again, I think it's better to LOAD and UNLOAD from cmdline (JEMM386)
when needed to avoid such problems.
> - but I located the p
2014-06-29 21:16 GMT+02:00, Rugxulo :
> I don't know which versions exactly, but AFAIK, Turbo C tries to use
> EMS by default (if found) but not XMS (without some cmdline switches).
> So who knows if it's getting confused here. Remember that 32 MB of EMS
> is a lot (to it)!
>
> Are you using any s
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Zbigniew wrote:
> 2014-06-29 15:25 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Viste :
>
>> I am not sure it's related to the XMS manager you use.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems to be related.
>
>> It's rather a matter of the amount of conventional memory you have.
>
> No, it was what I
Strange then. Maybe Jemmex provides more memory overall, but it's
fragmented for some reasons? MEM should tell you the size of the longest
contiguous block in memory ("largest executable block size" IIRC).
Mateusz
On 06/29/2014 03:45 PM, Zbigniew wrote:
> 2014-06-29 15:25 GMT+02:00, Mateusz V
2014-06-29 15:25 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Viste :
> I am not sure it's related to the XMS manager you use.
Unfortunately, it seems to be related.
> It's rather a matter of the amount of conventional memory you have.
No, it was what I checked first before posting.
> Maybe when using
> XMGR you end up
I am not sure it's related to the XMS manager you use. It's rather a
matter of the amount of conventional memory you have. Maybe when using
XMGR you end up with more free memory < 640K than when using Jemmex?
Mateusz
On 06/29/2014 03:20 PM, Zbigniew wrote:
> What I also noticed, Turbo C 2.01
What I also noticed, Turbo C 2.01 doesn't like JEMMEX - while having
around 32 MB of EMS and 1 GB of XMS, I cannot switch to shell from its
IDE; it complained: "not enough memory, press Esc".
No such problem when using XMGR instead of JEMMEX.
--
Z.
---
2014-06-19 1:05 GMT+02:00, Louis Santillan :
> The uide drivers gets updated rather frequently. Find the latest here <
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/ellis>
Well I used the latest one - and it turned out, that older uide2.sys
is more "Turbo C compatible" than newest
The uide drivers gets updated rather frequently. Find the latest here <
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/ellis>
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Zbigniew wrote:
> I noticed another issue while using Turbo C 2.01:
>
> If in the fdconfig.sys there is uide.sys used (or
I noticed another issue while using Turbo C 2.01:
If in the fdconfig.sys there is uide.sys used (or uide2.sys used for
HDD) - the compilation is incredibly slow (100x or 200x times slower).
But it is enough to _not_ use this driver, or to use uide2.sys with
parameter like "/D:CDROM", to have Turbo
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> After a fresh install of FreeDos, I found turbo c 2.01 is terribly slow to
>> run.
>
> That depends on what you mean by Turbo C. The IDE (editor) of it?
> Compiler? Some program written in Turbo C? What kind of program?
I meant the T
Hi!
> After a fresh install of FreeDos, I found turbo c 2.01 is terribly slow to
> run.
That depends on what you mean by Turbo C. The IDE (editor) of it?
Compiler? Some program written in Turbo C? What kind of program?
> even the speed of scrolling the screen is unacceptable. However,
> when I
After a fresh install of FreeDos, I found turbo c 2.01 is terribly slow to run.
even the speed of scrolling the screen is unacceptable. However, when I
unloaded FDAPM, turbo c became normal.
Is there any work around? Is it a bug in Turbo C or in FDAPM?
---
Pluto
-
Hi Eric,
> > Do you mean, authors making their programs FDAPM aware?
> No I mean making FDAPM aware of the programs... Exactly
> the same way as your "DPAKBD" is aware of your programs,
> without having to change your programs, as I understood.
That would be great!
And, Yes, you underst
Hi Marcos,
>> another chance would obviously be making fdapm aware :-)
>
> Do you mean, authors making their programs FDAPM aware?
No I mean making FDAPM aware of the programs... Exactly
the same way as your "DPAKBD" is aware of your programs,
without having to change your programs, as I unders
Hi,
For about a year I have been using only programs which either
are natively FDAPM-aware, or can become so with help of a TSR.
I just don't *like* CPUs running at 100% capacity when all we
need is 2% or less, especially in notebooks with their tiny,
hard-to-reach cooling fans.
The TSR I curren
Am 09.10.11 02:21, schrieb Jack:
> Absolutely NO "self respecting" computer, or computer program,
> should at-all REQUIRE using "FDAPM" or any equivalents! What
> has happened to Industrial RESPONSIBILITY, i.e. making systems
> that RUN, WITHOUT requiring such "Band Aid" power software??!!
>
> In
Hi Jack,
> Absolutely NO "self respecting" computer, or computer program, should
> at-all REQUIRE using "FDAPM" or any equivalents! What has happened
> to Industrial RESPONSIBILITY, i.e. making systems that RUN, WITHOUT
> requiring such "Band Aid" power software??!!
Agreed -- they should indeed
I run a 15-year-old Windows/NT V4.0, "backed up" (and restored
occasionally!) by a 17-year-old V6.22 MS-DOS. My system is a
"flat" desktop (not a "tower") with its power-supply fan and a
13-CFM extra fan, thanks to my old 85-watt AMD 2100 CPU. TOO
MUCH, so now I have a 45 watt AMD 3000+, which
Am 08.10.11 19:54, schrieb Rugxulo:
>> It would be really good if a helpful FreeDOS developer could add FDAPM
>> awareness to more important programs in FreeDOS.
> I assume the shell would benefit from this the most, if not already.
The shell has no problem. CPU usage is normal (4%) if FDAPM is
r
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Ulrich Hansen wrote:
>
> It would be really good if a helpful FreeDOS developer could add FDAPM
> awareness to more important programs in FreeDOS.
I assume the shell would benefit from this the most, if not already.
Other stuff? Dunno, probably less benefit as
Am 08.10.11 06:59, schrieb Marcos Favero Florence de Barros:
> FDAPM is *very* effective, but softwares must be FDAPM-aware.
>
> DosZip is FDAPM-aware and will typically use only 2% of CPU time,
> provided it is configured for that. Go to the Setup, System Options
> menu and chech the "Use DOS Idl
Ulrich Hansen wrote:
> I had time to work with freedos in virtualbox the last two days. I
> experienced some odd overheating problems. The Macbook Pro I used was
> getting hot at the bottom and shut down automatically.
> It seems that FreeDOS grabs all the CPU power it finds. The Activity
> Monito
Hi Eric, Rugxulo,
Short answer: CPU idle ratio is still (reported as) about 50% on
notebooks.
Now the details.
>> (Me:)
>> Texts (mainly Aurora editor), databases (DataPerfect),
>> spreadsheets (SuperCalc).
> (Eric:)
> Interesting, I know none of those :-)
Aurora and DataPerfect are truly rema
Hi,
On 2/1/11, Eric Auer wrote:
>
>> Texts (mainly Aurora editor), databases (DataPerfect),
>> spreadsheets (SuperCalc).
>
> Interesting, I know none of those :-)
I'm sure you've heard of Aurora.
>> BUFFERS=4
>
> A bit more might be good.
Not needed if using UIDE as cache (see below).
>> DEVI
Hi Marcos,
> Texts (mainly Aurora editor), databases (DataPerfect),
> spreadsheets (SuperCalc).
Interesting, I know none of those :-)
> Pentiums, year 1995-2000, CPU speeds
> 133-333 MHz, memories 96-128 MB.
> BUFFERS=4
A bit more might be good.
> DEVICE=C:\FDOS\JEMM\JEMFBHLP.EXE
FB as in f
Hi Eric, Robert, and others,
> what do you usually do on the desktops and notebooks?
Texts (mainly Aurora editor), databases (DataPerfect),
spreadsheets (SuperCalc).
> Please tell us a little more about the specs of the
> notebooks / desktop.
Pentiums, year 1995-2000, CPU speeds 1
Marcos Favero Florence de Barros wrote:
> Is there something that must be configured differently in notebooks
> to achieve higher CPU idle times?
Please tell us a little more about the specs of the notebooks / desktop.
Does this also happen with a clean boot (no drivers loaded)?
Robert Riebisch
Hi,
In my desktop computers, FDAPM usually reports very high percentages
of CPU idle time. For instance, with the Aurora editor, which I use
for hours every day, a typical figure is 98-99% of idle time.
However, in both my notebooks (IBM ThinkPad and Compaq Armada, from
1999) this number is usua
Hi Marcos,
thanks for the in-depth measurements :-)
>1 FDAPM APMDOS + IDLEHALT=1 11 sec
>2 FDAPM ADV:REG + IDLEHALT=1 6 sec
>3 FDAPM APMDOS 6 sec
>4IDLEHALT=1 6 sec
>5 FDAPM ADV:REG
Hi Blakeslee,
standby is mostly APM based, but if your PC likes ACPI
better than APM, then you should try the following:
Make sure wake-on-lan is enabled in your BIOS / CMOS
setup and use FDAPM POWEROFF to switch off your PC.
It should be possible to wake up from there via WoL.
> ... to standby
Hi all,
Newbie here. I have been trying find a way to change the power state of some
of our pc's at work to standby or s3 I think is what I need. So that they
will be ready to receive and respond to WOL packets. I tried fdapm and saw
the standby option but in my newbieness couldn't figure out how t
> So far, only two things worked for me:
> - using the "throttle" tool (http://www.oldskool.org/pc/throttle/DOS),
> - disabling my processor's cache (there's a CPUCACHE program somewhere... just
> google after it... or disable your cache right in the BIOS).
I already tried throttle and it didn't w
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Fabien Meghazi wrote:
> So I played a little with fdapm speed<1-8> and it just have no effect
> ! Or if there's an effect, it's unnoticeable.
So far, only two things worked for me:
- using the "throttle" tool (http://www.oldskool.org/pc/throttle/DOS),
- disabling my p
Hi all,
I would like to know what could be the reasons why fdapm speed# won't
work for me ?
Is it a bios problem ? Should I change something in bios settings ?
I really need to slow down my cpu for some old softwares, and I first
tried software based cpu killer (residents) such as moslo, ... but
FDPKG basically replaces FDPM
On 7/7/07, Florian Xaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> how is the status of this package manager tool
> (http://fdpm.sourceforge.net/): It seems to work now?
>
> Btw: There should be a big link at FreeDOS homepage I think. I have
> seen the great package manag
Hi again,
I updated FDAPM again. Changed since 15jul: IDLEDPMS is
now smaller in RAM (< 1/2 kb) and avoids double-loading.
If you try to load it twice, you get a message. There
is also a tiny change in VBE/PM handling.
Of course there are also the old news from 15jul: Fixed
the stats used for "C
Hi all,
after a bug report from Mateusz, I fixed an error in
the way FDAPM calculates the "idle ...% of the time"
message idleness. In addition, I have added a new tool,
IDLEDPMS, which is a small but effective TSR screen
saver. For example you run "idledpms 15", the screen
saver stays in ram, an
Hi,
how is the status of this package manager tool
(http://fdpm.sourceforge.net/): It seems to work now?
Btw: There should be a big link at FreeDOS homepage I think. I have
seen the great package manager of Debian and DJGPP
(http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~phekda/richdawe/pakke/) and I think
it
Hi!
1-Мар-2005 22:42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net:
EA> - POWER can detect "check for key"-flooding and react with freezing the
EA> system for some part of every second (usually 3/8-7/8 of it, with flood
EA> being defined as usually 285-750 re
Hi, some questions TO the users (as opposed to questions FROM users ;-))...
- what do you think about adding the SF project Regina-Rexx to FreeDOS?
It implements the REXX scripting language which is IBM's PC DOS answer
to MS DOS QBASIC, and probably a good one. However, it is quite big,
mor
Hi, question, does any of you think that
- VBE/PM aware screensavers save more energy than classic VGA compatible
"put monitor into standby / suspend / poweroff" ones? I mean, is there
a chance that VBE/PM puts not only the screen but also the graphics
card into some energy saving mode?
- PC
45 matches
Mail list logo
