🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: alt.games.wing-commander
Article #17786

Re: Directx 3 "upsets" existing DOS mode games

#17786
From: d... David L Webster
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 00:00
135 lines
7006 bytes
On Sun, 11 May 1997 06:03:10 -0400, traxx <tr...@hell.com> wrote:

>Um.. bullshit.
>
>Dos7 for one thing isn't really dos. It's win95 in a "dos" mode.

Well it looks like you have bought the MS hype hook line and sinker.
If anyone is a canidate for a "wannabe" or an "MS Hack" it's you
because your statement is exactly what MS wants you to believe.   The
truth is Windows 95 is DOS 7 (a real mode DOS)  and Windows 4.   You
do know what the Windows 95 splash screen is doing there when it
starts up right, it's hiding DOS loading.   Just hit the esc key and
there in all it's glory (gory) is DOS.   You should also know that
with a few tweaks you can boot right to a real mode DOS prompt and
then type Win to get to 95 and then exit back to the DOS prompt, not
to a Win95 "dos" mode but a true real mode DOS.   Read Andrew
Schulmans book 'Unathorized Windows 95'.  It will be a revelation as
to what Windows 95 really is (and isn't)

In the meantime try this:

1) Format a boot disk with DOS 7, copy fdisk, format, himem, emm386,
smartdrv, and whatever other utilities you want.   Go to a new system,
fdisk and format the drive with DOS7.  Copy your utilites and create
any CONFIG.SYS and  AUTOEXEC.BAT you need.  Now boot it up, run some
games, load Windows 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups, do whatever you
want.   If DOS 7 isn't really DOS, then what is it?   DOS 7 is a real
mode stand alone DOS, the same as every other DOS before it, and
that's no MS hype.

>Secondly, dos7 by default uses more base memory.

This is correct, it uses 25k more than DOS 6.22  in a clean boot with
no drivers, not loading DOS high, etc.

> A >Few< games require
>approx. 600k base and in win95 it is virtually impossible, especially if
>you need mscdex, dblspace , etc installed. .

You say it's impossible getting 600k from Win95?  Here are three
output samples of the MEM command from my Win95 system.   I am using a
single multi config CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT the same one that I
use in DOS 6.22.  I'm loading CDROM, mouse drivers and smartdrive.  I
don't need dblspace because it's a 2gb drive.   I didn't do any
special tweaking (memmaker etc)  I'm just throwing drivers into UMB's.
I'm booting  to real mode DOS 7.

Extended memory only selection:

Modules using memory below 1 MB:

  Name           Total           Conventional       Upper Memory
  --------  ----------------   ----------------   ----------------
  SYSTEM      19,344   (19K)     10,544   (10K)      8,800    (9K)
  HIMEM          1,104    (1K)      1,104    (1K)          0    (0K)
  EMM386        4,320    (4K)      4,320    (4K)          0    (0K)
  COMMAND   10,064   (10K)          0    (0K)     10,064   (10K)
  MTMCDAI     10,912   (11K)          0    (0K)     10,912   (11K)
  MSCDEX       46,640   (46K)          0    (0K)     46,640   (46K)
  SMARTDRV  30,368   (30K)          0    (0K)     30,368   (30K)
  MOUSE         25,808   (25K)          0    (0K)     25,808   (25K)

  Free       681,088  (665K)    639,040  (624K)     42,048   (41K)

Well, that wasn't too hard to get 639k, with 42k of UMB still free.

Here's my selection for expanded memory for those old DOS games that
need it.

Modules using memory below 1 MB:

  Name           Total           Conventional       Upper Memory
  --------  ----------------   ----------------   ----------------
  SYSTEM      19,344   (19K)     10,544   (10K)      8,800    (9K)
  HIMEM         1,104    (1K)      1,104    (1K)          0    (0K)
  EMM386       4,320    (4K)      4,320    (4K)          0    (0K)
  COMMAND  10,288   (10K)     10,288   (10K)          0    (0K)
  SMARTDRV 30,384   (30K)     13,984   (14K)     16,400   (16K)
  MTMCDAI     10,912   (11K)          0    (0K)     10,912   (11K)
  MSCDEX       46,640   (46K)          0    (0K)     46,640   (46K)
  MOUSE         25,808   (25K)          0    (0K)     25,808   (25K)
  
Free       631,696  (617K)    614,768  (600K)     16,928   (17K)

Since expanded memory uses 32k of umb space, I have a little less, but
still 600k.

Now for those really tough old DOS games I don't load the CDROM
drivers,  since most of these were pre CDROM anyway.

Modules using memory below 1 MB:

  Name           Total           Conventional       Upper Memory
  --------  ----------------   ----------------   ----------------
  SYSTEM      19,328   (19K)     10,544   (10K)      8,784    (9K)
  HIMEM          1,104    (1K)      1,104    (1K)          0    (0K)
  EMM386        4,320    (4K)      4,320    (4K)          0    (0K)
  COMMAND   10,288   (10K)     10,288   (10K)          0    (0K)
  MOUSE         25,808   (25K)          0    (0K)     25,808   (25K)
  SMARTDRV  29,024   (28K)          0    (0K)     29,024   (28K)
 
 Free       690,608  (674K)    628,752  (614K)     61,856   (60K)

Three options three, times 600k+ conventional memory all from DOS7.  I
do have other options to load sound card drivers etc from certain
games that need it, but I still have been able to get as much memory
as I need to run what I want.

>It is rare, but there are
>some things you simply cannot run without using an older version of dos
Yes, just as some things that used to run under 5.0 don't run under
6.x, and things worked under 3.3 stopped working under 5.0, and so on
and so on.  But I don't have boot disks of every version of DOS
around, I don't need (or want) this kind of complication.  If the app
doesn't work (and it has been rare indeed) I replace it with another
that will.  That's the price of progress (I think).

>Despite what the wannabe's on the newsgroups and MS's hacks tell you.
Again, you're in danger of becoming one yourself, don't believe
everything MS tells you.

>The best thing to do is keep a dos62 boot disk configured for maximum
>memory around and make sure it has all the drivers etc on it.
>
That's fine, whatevery people need to do.  But to say that it's
impossible is simply not true.   Win95 is just another version of the
DOS/Windows operating system combination.  There's nothing wrong with
that, simply that MS wants you to believe otherwise.  It's not that
difficult to get it to work the way you want if you approach it as DOS
AND  Windows.

-----
Dave Webster
d...@bridge.net
Technical Details
Message-ID: <3375ca60.2297989@news.bridge.net>
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <01bc4912$3e2ff2e0$2568adce@crc3.concentric.net> <33524edf.990813@news.gabn.net> <01bc46e9$2e278f00$02551dcb@COMPUTER1> <33555055.5365121@news.bridge.net> <oMiczAPBBh107h@vci.com.au> <01bc5b44$b1249640$1fb9adce@crc3.concentric.net> <3375995E.150A@hell.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: d...@bridge.net (David L Webster)
Subject: Re: Directx 3 "upsets" existing DOS mode games
Date: 1997/05/11
Message-ID: <3375ca60.2297989@news.bridge.net>
X-Deja-AN: 240865028
References: <01bc4912$3e2ff2e0$2568adce@crc3.concentric.net> <33524edf.990813@news.gabn.net> <01bc46e9$2e278f00$02551dcb@COMPUTER1> <33555055.5365121@news.bridge.net> <oMiczAPBBh107h@vci.com.au> <01bc5b44$b1249640$1fb9adce@crc3.concentric.net> <3375995E.150A@hell.com>
Organization: BridgeNet LC, Miami Florida
Newsgroups: alt.games.wing-commander,aus.games,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit