🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42v7fq$r...@warp.cris.com>, tstan  <ts...@cris.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I know a guy who, no matter what he does within the 
>context of editing shortcut parameters for a dos session within 
>windows, cannot get more than about 500k or less conventional 
>memory free. This leaves about 80% of his old dos software 
>unusable. Of course, the win95 manual is silent on these types 
>of problems. Actually the win95 manual is silent on just about 
>everything else to given its paltry size. 
>

I get 605K free.    How many legacy drivers is he loading?  I don't
have any.  

Here is my memory config in the dos session (using mem/c):

msdos:  18,144
himem: 1,168
ifshlp: 2,864
setver: 832
4dos:  3,984 (a new version of 4DOS5.51 that supports Win 95 great, try it!)
win:  2,272
vmm32: 3,552
4dos: 2,656 (because it is a dos session)
free memory: 619,616 (605K)

Check his config.sys and autoexec.bat and make sure they aren't loading
useless drivers (like any sort of cache).

>Now, my friends computing requirements preclude going to a 
>separate DOS session via the F8 key. Myself, I tend to prefer 
>that avenue and therefore, I find that I can configure my 
>computer to run most everything. 

This is a good method.  I assume you combine it with multi-config for
different programs (push F8, choose command line only, then choose one
of the choices in the multi-config menu.)

>The whole point is that Win95 is not a transparent OS that it 
>was advertised as. Maybe it can be made to work, but I wonder 
>if there wasn't an ulterior motive on Microsofts part in 
>choosing to keep people largely in the dark via the "no-manual" 
>situation......????

Bad situation,  I laughed at the manual.  The plus pack manual is
slightly bigger than the Windows 95 manual.  If you really need one, you
have to buy one of those 3rd party ones.

>
Steven