RLoew's non-XMS Ramdisk and related Software

[jaclaz]

7 hours ago, 98SE said:

I couldn't leave 29GB of RAM just sitting there wasting power doing nothing. 

 

A nice example of circular reasoning.

jaclaz

[98SE]

10 hours ago, jaclaz said:

A nice example of circular reasoning.

jaclaz

I would say mine are linear based if you recall the thread we shared explaining my long list of uses for the Ramdrive in XP.  But I doubt most people will use an XP Ramdrive if there is no need despite the extra unused RAM capacity.  Most just stick to just 4GB and accept the small loss or moved to a 64-bit OS.  I tend to maximize what I use when possible.  Qemm jaclaz?

[98SE]

18 hours ago, rloew said:

You can relabel my RAMDisks as you see fit.
The description distinguishes them from the other RAMDisks which use XMS.
XMS RAMDisks can be any size in DOS but are limited in Windows 9x. Mine are not.

Maybe WXMS or W9XMS Ramdisk for Windows XMS Ramdisk or XXMS for eXtended XMS Ramdisk or a more inclusive name RLoew's WinDOS 4GB Plus XXMS Ramdisk.  The Non-XMS Ramdisk naming threw me off when I first saw it.  I could only assume you used XMS in the title to attract more XMS type hits.  But if your program can make use of a larger Ramdisk in 9X/ME I would try and advertise this feature in the title somehow as I assumed all other XMS Ramdisks could be seen inside 9X/ME and yours was the only capable of >4GB in size using the 64-bit version.  I haven't had time to test any Ramdisks made in DOS to see if they are detected in 9X/ME in decades.  I thought they were detected or I had done this back in the day with some of the older DOS Ramdisk programs at the time which were much smaller in size given the max limits then but if you say they aren't detectable in 9X/ME I'll have to try a bunch of them out again to refresh my memory and if this is true then this is a useful feature if your program is the only one with this unique capability and you should proudly flaunt it.

Have you tried measuring how much conventional memory the Non-XMS driver uses and how much your command line Ramdrive program uses individually?  You had mentioned your program does use a few MBs or so but in DOS even a few bytes would cause a program not to run so every byte counts.  These would be very important features to advertise for DOS users who need the most memory possible for certain programs and would enhance your product's attractiveness.  Does your Non-XMS allow loading drivers and TSRs into your non XMS memory region or is this strictly for your Ramdisk program only?

Quote

I just tested a Dual Mode RAMDisk that can combine both 32-Bit and 64-Bit RAM into a single Drive.
I created a 15.74GiB RAMDisk on my 16GiB System.

This is progress and it uses a single drive letter rather than two?  Does your program offer the ability to specify in bytes the size of the Ramdisk?  If you create a handicapped or nullified demo program I am interested in testing how much conventional memory it uses at the DOS level to compare against memory managers low memory usage.  Also on the config.sys program maybe you can include in this information on the driver boot screen verbose option.

.

XXMS 32-bit Memory available (1 byte -> 4GB)

Conventional Memory available (loading your Non XMS driver before loading other Config.Sys and Autoexec.Bat files)

655360 Bytes free<- Max example it will obviously be lower from DOS

High Memory available 384KB (640KB -> 1024KB)

393216 Bytes free <- Max example

EMS Memory 64KB max

65536 Bytes free

.

XXMS 32-bit Memory available (1024KB -> 4096GB)

3221225472 Bytes free

3145728 KB free

3072 MB free

.

XXMS 64-bit Memory available (4096MB -> 64GB+)

example for 32GB installed - 4GB 32-bit

30064771072 Bytes free

29360128 KB free

28672 MB free

.

.

XXMS with no parameters show 32/64-bit RAMDRIVE program with detailed verbose output

XXMS 32-bit Memory available (1024KB -> 4096GB)

3221225472 Bytes free

3145728 KB free

3072 MB free

(example for 1GB would display specified in the following formats for assigned drive letter Y:)

Y:

1073741824 Bytes allocated

1048576 MB allocated

1024 MB allocated

.

XXMS 64-bit Memory available (4096MB -> 64GB+)

(example for 32GB installed - 4GB 32-bit would display specified in the following formats for assigned drive letter Z:)

30064771072 Bytes allocated

29360128 KB allocated

28672 MB allocated

.

Total RamDisk Capacity for 32GB installed (32-bit + 64-bit XXMS combined) 3GB + 28GB

33285996544 Bytes allocated

32505856 KB allocated

31744 MB allocated

.

.

Possible command line syntax:

I'm making up these if I were to create one

XXMS DriveLetter:

XXMS assigns Drive Letter to Ramdrive

.

XXMS /c

XXMS configuration output shows all Ramdrives created in sequential order

Sample output

U: 32-bit Ramdisk #1 1024 Bytes, 1KB

W: 32-bit Ramdisk #2 1048576 Bytes, 1.00GB

X: 32-bit Ramdisk #3 2097152 Bytes, 2.00GB

Y: 64-bit Ramdisk #4 8388608 Bytes, 8.00GB

R: All-bit Ramdisk #5 16777216 Bytes, 16.00GB

.

XXMS /u32b3 = uninstall 32bit Ramdisk #3 and free memory

XXMS X:/u = uninstall Ramdisk assigned X: and free memory

/32b1 = 32bit Ramdisk #1

/32b4 = 32bit Ramdisk #4

.

XXMS U:/32b1=1024

creates drive U: XXMS 32-bit Ramdisk 1024 bytes

.

XXMS W:/32b2=1048576

creates drive W: XXMS 32-bit Ramdisk 1GB

.

XXMS X:/32b3=2097152

creates drive X: XXMS 32-bit Ramdisk 2GB

.

XXMS Y:/64b4=8388608

creates drive Y: XXMS 64-bit Ramdisk 8GB

.

XXMS R:/3264b5=16777216

creates drive R: XXMS 32-bit/64-bit Ramdisk 16GB

or

XXMS R:/allb5=16777216

alternate way of stating 32-bit/64-bit Ramdisk using /allb

creates drive R: XXMS 32-bit/64-bit Ramdisk 16GB

.

FAST OPTIONS to create maximum Ramdrive size possible:

XXMS S:/32bfast6

creates drive S: the largest 32-bit Ramdrive using available RAM up to 3GB (1GB->4GB region).

If no Ramdrives are created can use

XXMS S:/32bfast1

.

XXMS T:/64bfast7

creates drive T: the largest 64-bit Ramdrive using available RAM above 4GB->.

.

XXMS L:/allbfast8

creates drive L: the largest 32-bit and 64-bit combined Ramdrive using available RAM above 1GB+ as one contiguous memory chunk.  If no Ramdrives are created can use

XXMS L:/allfast1

.

XXMS LOEW/u

Removes all 32bit and 64bit Ramdrives and frees used drive letters and memory.

.

Quote

I have no USB 2 PCI-E Cards to test. If someone has any. Do they work?

I'm pretty sure they will work inside 9X/ME as long as the proper 9X/ME driver is available for it it should not have a problem.  As far as booting off these 3rd Party PCIe USB 2.0 I'm more inclined to say probably not.  I don't think the BIOS lets you choose a 3rd party USB cards as a bootable option but maybe a hacked BIOS might allow it.

Edited June 18, 2017 by 98SE

[98SE]

15 hours ago, dencorso said:

Well, you might use a common garden variety PCI USB 2.0 card and mount it using the StarTech.com PCI Express to PCI Adapter Card (PEX1PCI1). That may be an adequate test, and sure is far easier than finding a true PCI-e USB 2.0 card to test.

That is a bit overpriced method of adapting PCI to PCIe slot.  Also the whole bracket alignment thing?  You might need a real short PCI card for that to work with the PCI to PCIe riser adapter.  If you try this adapter let us know the result.  I'm worried about the bracket not being flush.

Edited June 18, 2017 by 98SE

[rloew]

Any other name would be meaningless to people. The Title is too short to describe the features. The description explains them.

XMS usage by ANY Program is tracked by Windows 9x.

The RAMDisk Drivers use less than 3KB per Drive.

HIMEMEX is not restricted to RAMDisks. It is also used by my MEMORY64 Package. You can write Applications that can use HIMEMEX to manage Memory.

It is not a type of UMA so you can't run Real Mode Code from it's Memory..

[jaclaz]

1 hour ago, 98SE said:

 I tend to maximize what I use when possible.

Sure, but it's not that you actually use it (without a suitable ramdisk).

You don't *need* that crazy amount of memory (generally speaking) but SURELY you won't have a practical use for it in Windows 98/Me.

Mind you it is fine  (and often "fun" ) to do experiments for "futile" motives, like "because I can", or "because noone did it before", it is the attempt to make it seem "rational" that creates the circular reasoning.

There is NO (rational) reason for 29 Gb of RAM, let alone on a 9x/Me machine, and if there was one you have spent by now all the time you could ever save with a fast ramdisk theorizing on ramdisks, nitpicking on their names and more generally arguing on nearly everything that has been posted.

 

Sure the US$ 40+ for a PCI Express to PCI adapter is "overpriced", but while I could say so (being notoriously cheap ) you cannot, not after having spent good dollars for a large amount of RAM that you cannot use (without a suitable ramdisk) additionally creating artificially (because you have so much RAM) the need for the suitable ramdisk.

This seems pretty much circular to me.

jaclaz
 

[98SE]

4 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Sure, but it's not that you actually use it (without a suitable ramdisk).

You don't *need* that crazy amount of memory (generally speaking) but SURELY you won't have a practical use for it in Windows 98/Me.

Mind you it is fine  (and often "fun" ) to do experiments for "futile" motives, like "because I can", or "because noone did it before", it is the attempt to make it seem "rational" that creates the circular reasoning.

There is NO (rational) reason for 29 Gb of RAM, let alone on a 9x/Me machine, and if there was one you have spent by now all the time you could ever save with a fast ramdisk theorizing on ramdisks, nitpicking on their names and more generally arguing on nearly everything that has been posted.

As I already mentioned before in our prior discussion in another thread I have been using the rest of my memory as a large Ramdisk for years maybe going back to 2011-12 with the current one.  I have used Ramdrives going back to DOS.  In DOS you could create a small Ramdisk just big enough to hold two 1.44MB floppy disks and copy the disks to it.  MFM hard disks were very slow and noisy then so you could eliminate a lot of computer noise doing this and it loaded so fast compared to floppies.  So when you mention it as if it doesn't exist seems a bit odd or as if no one else is doing this.  Memory was not expensive if you wait for the right time to purchase.  At one point 16GB DDR3 went as low as $60 USD here.  $120 is not outrageous for you is it for 32GB memory?

Now if you are applying the Ramdrive to 9X/ME I'm only repeating what was already established and done endless times on XP but on a more primitive OS.  On 9X/ME I would probably say 8GB is more than sufficient assuming the Ramdrive is one contiguous chunk and not split into two if it exceeds 4GB leaving you a 3GB and 4GB chunk at most.  Wouldn't you prefer to have a solid 7GB chunk?  I highly doubt I am the first to use a Ramdisk in 9X/ME or a even a seemingly enormous one to you.  One used to think 640KB was more than enough for us to use on a computer.  But look where we are now.  I even have a few computers that only had 4KB only and to someone to hear someone else using 640KB is creating the same feeling you are experiencing of disbelief.  I hope you aren't complaining you have a machine with a few MBs worth of RAM during 9X/ME or in this case GBs on modern computers?  I'm sure you would have tried using the extra memory if you had large optical discs to image or programs that required multiple discs.

I would have preferred if programs had remained small and compact and fit on floppy disks and coded efficiently but that lasted until CDs became popular and things became severely bloated.  If I were to try and interface a CD-rom with 98 which were usually IDE based there would still be lag and delay when loading the disc.  The Ramdrive would be an alternate way of storing a virtual image of the disc and accessing it as fast as possible.  Also I don't know why you think everything is considered arguing when someone brings a different perspective that you have not experienced or can imagine.  If I were truly arguing you would know it and most of those people don't even respond to what you have to say.  I'm not sure why you are so defensive about improving something rather than accepting what is given.  This is another reason why we are still stuck on just 4 cores for so long.  We should be on 16 cores by now if you consider the time it took from P4 to Z77.  Sometimes you have to question to understand the reasoning behind something even in a simple Ramdisk name.  Ever heard of a car named Nova?  Guess why it didn't sell well in Mexico.  Just as you have asked what is the reasoning for me to use a Ramdrive big or small some may find 32GB limited today and for those people you can ask what they use it for.  There was a time when 32MB was a lot of memory on the 486.  What is your first computer?

If we are talking about 9X/ME what use do I have for such a large Ramdisk I mentioned there were several DVD based software that could be imaged and stored directly on the Ramdrive to avoid needing to use a DVD-rom to load directly or from a hard drive.  Granted it would be a very extreme case in your view by having the least possible amount of loading delay but back then we were dealing with slow ATA IDE hard disk drives and some MFM ones and early CD and DVD optical drives were a bit flaky 1x and usually used sound cards to interface properly that needed DOS drivers.  And many used PCI or ISA slots which no longer exist on many motherboards now.  This may not be of interest to you as you are not someone I believe that used your 9X/ME for gaming purposes so it is unlikely yourself would deal with optical drives and swapping optical discs if you only used the internet and some very old office programs.

You mentioned you thought 16GB on a computer seemed like an insane amount of memory in 2017.  Perhaps 10 years ago I would agree it sounds extreme.  But today I find 32GB not a lot as I'd like and there are motherboards with 128GB going back over 5 years for x79.  Maybe it is time for you to try Windows 7 64-bit or increase your memory or use programs that use a lot of memory and you will see 16GB on the border of usability.  Seeing how the internet has progressed and the web pages loaded now require more memory when at one time 512MB on XP allowed opening maybe a couple dozen windows then but today you need 3GB just to do the same.  If you don't multitask much and don't use any heavily intensive graphical stuff then you should be fine with just 16GB for most of your needs.  You might even be able to go to 8GB or 4GB since you are very cheap on program memory usage.  But I would say if you used Windows 7 64-bit that 16GB is what I think is just the right amount of memory today.  On XP the 3.2GB is very restrictive without using a Ramdrive.  Going back 10 years this wasn't a problem as my P4 was fine with 2GB then.

Quote

Sure the US$ 40+ for a PCI Express to PCI adapter is "overpriced", but while I could say so (being notoriously cheap ) you cannot, not after having spent good dollars for a large amount of RAM that you cannot use (without a suitable ramdisk) additionally creating artificially (because you have so much RAM) the need for the suitable ramdisk.

This seems pretty much circular to me.

jaclaz

Also it's not just the price which you skipped as my main reason and you can find it cheaper on eBay than $40.  The PCI card must be very low profile to fit into that PCI to PCIe riser adapter and make sure the bracket will fit properly to be screw secured into the computer.  If the PCI card is too tall this will become a problem if it is not flush.  Also it would be easier to just get a PCIe USB 2.0 card instead of all that work and probably a lot cheaper and less headache.  If you have a usage for the Ramdisk it does not make it circular.  You are assuming I got the extra Ram only to create a problem for myself.  I got the extra Ram because I wanted a large Ramdisk to make use of for a multitude of reasons.  The only problem then was finding a program that could create a large Ramdisk.  Most could not create that large a Ramdrive or were very cumbersome to use.  But now 128GB would be a nice size to have and I don't consider it for fun but essential for my needs.  I would allocate 16GB for XP OS use and the rest for the Ramdrive which would be a good balance today.

Edited June 18, 2017 by 98SE

[dencorso]

1 hour ago, 98SE said:

If the PCI card is too tall this will become a problem if it is not flush.

An alternative is the Syntech Adapter, which may be more convenient.
BTW, you talked about EMS. There's no true EMS for a long time already, what one can get is emulated EMS, usually created from XMS.
A the good old Intel AboveBoard was only produced for the ISA bus, AFAIK (maybe there even was some EISA version of it, but nothing later).

[rloew]

XMS limits the maximum size of a DOS RAMDisk. Non-XMS does not. If someone knew about the XMS limitation they would be interested in a non-XMS Version.
If they did not know, they would be curious why I am promoting "non-XMS" and would find out why. I am sticking with "non-XMS".

Obviously the new version uses only one Drive Letter. Otherwise there would be no point.

All three versions allow you to specify a Drive Letter or default to the next free Drive Letter.

The 32-Bit Version requires you to specify it's size in KiB. There is no default.

The 64-Bit and Dual Mode Versions allow you to specify the amount of 64-Bit RAM or default to all 64-Bit RAM.

The Dual Mode Version will additionally Allocate all Reserved 32-Bit RAM. You specify 32-Bit RAM with the /A or /L Option on HIMEMEX.

As I said before, they use less than 3KB of conventional memory per Drive.
HIMEMEX also uses conventional memory. You have that so you can test it yourself.

I haven't actually used a 29GiB RAMDisk for any particular purpose, but I did manipulate a 26GiB array in RAM using direct coding to maximize speed. I used Windows 98SE to reduce overhead.

Adding the ability to Change, List or Delete RAMDisks is not in my plans.

[98SE]

16 hours ago, rloew said:

Any other name would be meaningless to people. The Title is too short to describe the features. The description explains them.

XMS usage by ANY Program is tracked by Windows 9x.

The RAMDisk Drivers use less than 3KB per Drive.

HIMEMEX is not restricted to RAMDisks. It is also used by my MEMORY64 Package. You can write Applications that can use HIMEMEX to manage Memory.

It depends on name given but the XMS and Ramdrive are the only relevant words in the title that attract me for now.  I'll have to investigate deeper into the other Ramdrives to do a full analysis of each of their limits where yours has a clear advantage other than > 4GB in size to improve the name.  I assume most other XMS Ramdrives are not able to access 64-bit memory which the most obvious advantage to make known.

Going by your estimates the maximum conventional memory used for

23 Drive Letters is 69KB (D: to Z:)

If it can also use A: and B: unused letters that would bring it to 75KB.

Would there be a way to reduce this footprint further?  If the first Ramdrive letter is created could the additional ones use less than 3KB code chained off the first Ramdrive into the HIMEMEX?  Or write the entire code and use just the 3KB footprint in conventional memory but inside the HIMEMEX place the extra additional code to reserve 25-26 drive letter possibilities without impacting conventional memory for each drive letter.

As for the MEMORY64 package I can't comment on its advantages today but I'm sure you or others who use it can.  If I knew what you knew I'd help write applications for it since I have all the possible hardware that existed back in the late 70s till now.  For the time being only you and maybe a few handful of your generation are still alive and kicking with the knowledge you possess to write these programs.  If I had studied this stuff back then I would have tried to help you out today.  I was more into program design and user interface.

Quote

It is not a type of UMA so you can't run Real Mode Code from it's Memory..

Can you clarify what this means?  If I copy any DOS program into your HimemX region and run it are you saying it will crash or not function?

What about copying the entire Windows 9X or ME OS into it and running Win?

Is there a way for your program to reassign C: harddrive/SSD partition to another designated letter so your Ramdrive can steal the C: letter?

Have you attempted to boot off a USB flash drive, create your large Ramdrive and unzip the the entire contents of your working 9X/ME into it and then running 9X/ME off just your Ramdrive to see if it functions properly?

Edited June 19, 2017 by 98SE

[98SE]

9 hours ago, dencorso said:

An alternative is the Syntech Adapter, which may be more convenient.
BTW, you talked about EMS. There's no true EMS for a long time already, what one can get is emulated EMS, usually created from XMS.
A the good old Intel AboveBoard was only produced for the ISA bus, AFAIK (maybe there even was some EISA version of it, but nothing later).

EMS is for a special few DOS programs that used a combination of EMS and XMS to function.  A few Origin titles used this combination.  What programs did you use to get emulated EMS?  Have you use RL's Ramdrive in conjunction with the EMS?

The Syntech adapter you referenced is a little better than the riser adapter jaclaz mentioned which I had seen before he mentioned it and I crossed it off my list a long time ago.  But the motherboard that seems to fit the adapter you mentioned would be smaller than a standard ATX so you can use the free space next to the left most PCIe slot to mount it.  This adapter would be well suited for adding a legacy PCI sound card into a pure PCIe slots only motherboard found in Z170 usually and later.  As for does it actually work?  The USB 2.0 PCIe card exists so this adapter would not be required.

Have you found any PCI to ISA or PCIe to ISA adapters that functioned properly?

Have you seen any PCI to AGP or PCIe to AGP adapters which would open up 9X/ME compatibility on Z170 and later.

[98SE]

6 hours ago, rloew said:

XMS limits the maximum size of a DOS RAMDisk. Non-XMS does not. If someone knew about the XMS limitation they would be interested in a non-XMS Version.
If they did not know, they would be curious why I am promoting "non-XMS" and would find out why. I am sticking with "non-XMS".

What is the maximum standard XMS limit for other Ramdrives than yours since this is useful information to advertise.

Quote

Obviously the new version uses only one Drive Letter. Otherwise there would be no point.

All three versions allow you to specify a Drive Letter or default to the next free Drive Letter.

This is why I recommended this idea to combine your 32-bit and 64-bit Ramdisk into one product.  Now have you worked it out so that this dual mode version works on early 32-bit computers dating to 386 as well when it detects non 64-bit CPUs?

Quote

The 32-Bit Version requires you to specify it's size in KiB. There is no default.

The 64-Bit and Dual Mode Versions allow you to specify the amount of 64-Bit RAM or default to all 64-Bit RAM.

The Dual Mode Version will additionally Allocate all Reserved 32-Bit RAM. You specify 32-Bit RAM with the /A or /L Option on HIMEMEX.

As I said before, they use less than 3KB of conventional memory per Drive.
HIMEMEX also uses conventional memory. You have that so you can test it yourself.

I haven't actually used a 29GiB RAMDisk for any particular purpose, but I did manipulate a 26GiB array in RAM using direct coding to maximize speed. I used Windows 98SE to reduce overhead.

I would recode so the default size specified is recognized in Bytes as all DOS programs or people who would normally use DOS Ramdisks followed this standard despite today we have GB and TB of RAM this is still a DOS program where each byte is critical.  In Windows only Ramdisks KB is more appropriate.  It is more critical to know exactly how many bytes to allocate to prevent a program from not functioning.  Your minimum conventional memory used is the HIMEMEX, plus the Command Line program 3KB + Ramdrive size.

Here is the optimal way to add the syntax for your dual mode Ramdisk.

XXMS X:/32b1=2097152

Forces as the first Ramdisk shown in XXMS /c option.

or

XXMS X:/32b=2097152

Removing the designated number after 32b or 64b It will automatically assign it the next number in sequence.

creates drive X: XXMS 32-bit Ramdisk 2GB

adding further command line options to assign the same 2GB Ramdrive using more modern capacity terminology.

XXMS X:/32b1=2048KB

XXMS X:/32b1=2GB

.

For future applications of larger Ramdrives we will see 10 to 20 years from now:

XXMS X:/32b1=2TB

Will create an X: drive with 2TB Ramdrive

.

XXMS X:/32b1=2PB

Will create an X: drive with 2PB Ramdrive

.

Three ways of implementing the same result:

XXMS /Allb=1TB

or

XXMS /All=1TB

or

XXMS /A=1TB

Removing the designated number after 32b or 64b It will automatically assign it the next number in sequence AND removing the drive letter parameter it will assign the next available drive letter after the last hard drive or SSD partition drive letter.  If say Hard drives or SSDs partitions used up to drive letter H:.

creates drive I: XXMS 32-bit and 64-bit combined Ramdisk for 1TB total.

You don't need to deal with differentiating KB with KiB or MB with MiB or GB with GiB, TB with TiB.  Too much overly PC talk these days.  Most computer users using your program already assume 1KB = 1024 bytes if you grew up in the heyday.  Back in the early DOS days people knew this is the accepted standard.  It's only computer hard drive manufacturers that decided to rip consumers off using the 1000 bytes = 1KB instead of the true 1024 bytes = 1KB that these fake new capacity naming schemes started.

Quote

Adding the ability to Change, List or Delete RAMDisks is not in my plans.

This should be a future feature to consider in the final revision since you are still working on it.  Constantly rebooting in order to reassign new Ramdrives is not very convenient in DOS and more relevant on much older 386 or earlier systems where boot time is a factor.

If you could manually uninstall or change and list the Ramdrive sizes without rebooting the computer which most DOS programs practiced religiously was a sign of good efficient code.  Even on today's modern systems there still a very significant lag time to rebooting a machine or if booting off a USB floppy it is even more noticeable.  Your program should excel at this given your expertise in coding this should be a piece of cake to implement.

98SE

Edited June 19, 2017 by 98SE

[jaclaz]

12 hours ago, 98SE said:

  Ever heard of a car named Nova?  Guess why it didn't sell well in Mexico.  Just as you have asked what is the reasoning for me to use a Ramdrive big or small some may find 32GB limited today and for those people you can ask what they use it for.  There was a time when 32MB was a lot of memory on the 486.  What is your first computer?

Why, in my day, I had a ZX-80 with a whopping 1 Kb of memory ....

... and we liked it :

https://tinyapps.org/blog/misc/200702250700_why_in_my_day.html

BTW, let's not perpetrate urban legends, however:

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

And yes, 16 Gb of RAM on Windows 7 64 bit system do seem like "adequate" (though on the "abundant" side of possible ranges), but 29 Gb on a 9x/Me system still seem "excessive", let's say that the first represent 8 (eight) times the "minimum requirement" of 2 Gb (and are supported in the design of the OS by the manufacturer), the second represent 928 (ninehundredtwentyeight)  times (it sounds more like a Porsche car model than a - anyway large - multiplier for RAM size)  the minimum amount for Me (32 Mb).

Given that also processors have made some slight progresses, all in all nowadays a VM is several times faster (including a "plain" storage subsystem, possibly on SSD) than the fastest machine any programmer of any program (game or otherwise) would have dreamed of, even if you allow for a 30% to 50%  slugginess due to the virtualization.

As you correctly presumed I am not too much into gaming (please read as not at all since many, many years), but allow me to presume that reaction times of the player has not increased with similar rates, and that even loading times of complex games, comparing a year 20xx IDE DVD reader against a modern SATA SSD, (but nothing in the case of a VM running on a more modern OS prevents from having them in a RAMdisk) are not that bad.

jaclaz

 

[98SE]

2 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Why, in my day, I had a ZX-80 with a whopping 1 Kb of memory ....

... and we liked it :

https://tinyapps.org/blog/misc/200702250700_why_in_my_day.html

Acorn.   Sadly most of the UK and European computers were not popular in the United States.  However thanks to emulators I may try out some of my older games that existed on many platforms including your ZX-80.  I have a TI-44/A which is one of the oldest and had 256 bytes of RAM.

Quote

BTW, let's not perpetrate urban legends, however:

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

As long as you understood the intent of branding and having a proper name helps popularize a product.

Quote

And yes, 16 Gb of RAM on Windows 7 64 bit system do seem like "adequate" (though on the "abundant" side of possible ranges), but 29 Gb on a 9x/Me system still seem "excessive", let's say that the first represent 8 (eight) times the "minimum requirement" of 2 Gb (and are supported in the design of the OS by the manufacturer), the second represent 928 (ninehundredtwentyeight)  times (it sounds more like a Porsche car model than a - anyway large - multiplier for RAM size)  the minimum amount for Me (32 Mb

That's why I stated 8GB would be probably the maximum needed on 9X/ME installed which means you get about 5GB for the RamDrive which is enough to fit one DVD iso.  Although most DVDs are 4.7GB to 8GB in size and they did exist during 9X/ME time frame.  The biggest production probably I can think of for 9X/ME was Wing Commander IV existed on a special DVD-rom release and was one of the first DVD-rom games that came as a combo with some Sound Blaster DVD kits.  But if you are playing Minesweeper or Solitaire then yes this would be an excessive use of system RAM to have such a larger Ramdrive even beyond 700MB which is good enough for most CD-rom based titles.

Quote

Given that also processors have made some slight progresses, all in all nowadays a VM is several times faster (including a "plain" storage subsystem, possibly on SSD) than the fastest machine any programmer of any program (game or otherwise) would have dreamed of, even if you allow for a 30% to 50% slugginess due to the virtualization.

Virtualization is good to consider now.  Z170 has killed 9X/ME or at least opened the coffin door.  We need to develop a 9X/ME Box emulator and later add 9X/ME video card emulator.  If R.Loew knows how to do it I will support him to test for errors to be fixed.  But only DosBOX emulator is successful but I don't believe you can run 9X/ME inside it.  And even if you could get that far there is still the problem of video card emulator for 2D/3D graphics of that era.  Sound card for Sound Blaster emulator looks easily available and can be ported easily from DosBOX.  Any sluggishness on a Quad core would be negligible today if a 9X/ME VM BOX is created it would run very fast in XP.

Quote

As you correctly presumed I am not too much into gaming (please read as not at all since many, many years), but allow me to presume that reaction times of the player has not increased with similar rates, and that even loading times of complex games, comparing a year 20xx IDE DVD reader against a modern SATA SSD, (but nothing in the case of a VM running on a more modern OS prevents from having them in a RAMdisk) are not that bad.

This is why 9X/ME VM BOX will solve this dilemma.  Otherwise you have to use actual hardware and I think using 9X/ME VM BOX inside XP will be blazingly fast and not require a special DOS Ramdrive but use an XP Ramdrive which is more customizable and more efficient use of resources.  The biggest hurdle is emulating the video card of nVidia 7950 GX2 which I believe is the fastest most powerful for 9X/ME.  Second is Voodoo 5 card emulation for 9X/ME VM BOX.  That is why I propose using Intel HD iGPU and AMD iGPU to do the video card emulation of both nVidia 7950 GX2 and Voodoo 5 model 5500 as the Intel or AMD iGPU should be multiple times more powerful than these 9X/ME graphics cards could produce and no more fan noise or massive wattage and heat to deal with as a bonus.

The big Question is how long will it take and can it be done and the only person I can think of that might be able to pull it off given his background is R. Loew.

Edited June 19, 2017 by 98SE

[ragnargd]

There are attempts at 98SE running inside DOSBox with VooDoo drivers to have DX.

I did not have the time to test this out yet (I will someday in the future), but even if it works, there will be issues, because VoDoo isn't exactly The Latest(tm) for W9x as well.

Still, this DOSBox-thingie is the most promising project known to me.

Going for a DX(9.0c)-enabled driver that hands through the API from a W9x-VM to a host is a non-trivial matter.

Even for XP, which is understood much better by people like the guys from VMWare, this just barely works within VMWare workstation after years. The same with qemu on linux.

R. Loew *might* be able to do this, but why should he (or just anyone) even bother? This is REALLY much work, and i don't think whoever did this would ever get enough money from it to justify this enormous amount of time. Again: We are speaking about years here.

But in case: Just ask him...