RLoew's non-XMS Ramdisk and related Software

[98SE]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dibya said:

16 cores are detected and work fine on i7-5960X board with XP 32 with X99 though the pc is not mine rather of my elder sister .

Pretty fast with XP .

I think Rloew may make a multicore patch for 9x .

That is nice Dibya.  Does your sister prefer XP only?

According to this info page:

https://ark.intel.com/products/82930/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-20M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz

Looks like true 8 cores / 16 Threads.

Does the XP Device Manger under Processors show 8 copies of i7-5960X or 16 copies?

I will wait for 16 cores / 32 Threads to upgrade.

Edited June 16, 2017 by 98SE

[98SE]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:04 PM, rloew said:

The Test Program does not report memory. It verifies 64-Bit Access and A20 control.

HIMEMEX reports the amount to 64-Bit RAM.

Since the unused 32-Bit RAM is remapped to 64-Bit RAM by the BIOS, increasing the MMIO usage increases the 64-Bit RAM at the expense of 32-Bit RAM.

The OS does not affect the amount of available Memory unless you tell the BIOS to let the OS configure PnP.

Most PCI-E SATA Cards still support IDE Mode so they could be used to get around the AHCI problem if you have a spare slot. Unfortunately there is no easy way to tell from the product descriptions.

The memory stated was hand copied after the driver loaded in config.sys before reaching the command prompt.  Those values changed when I altered my BIOS and or Graphics devices so I was adding that detail in my tests in case it may help you or others to maximize the amount of 64-bit memory before running your non XMS RamDrive.

The PCI-E SATA Card option you are talking about 3rd party add in?  I did try this on a P4 and it failed but it is a PCI card so I can't test in the Z170 as it only has PCIe slots.  The BIOS has to support it and that is hard to tell which ones will work or not work.  Most you have to load a driver once inside the Windows OS to access the SATA card properly and cannot be booted off as a primary boot device.

I found some more success on the P4.  IDE to SATA adapters do work to use cheap SATA storage devices and I was able to boot into 98SE no problem off the SATA SSD.  No more IDE hard drives are required.  This may circumvent the need for a SATA patch for people using IDE controllers.

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 5:46 PM, rloew said:

6. What Mods are you talking about? My RAM Limitation Patch works with Windows ME. Memory capacity for all 32-Bit Operating Systems have the same limit. They may report a couple of Megabytes difference at best.

I was talking about making a better Limitation Patch mod not based on the 98 kernel but using the ME kernel and related sys files.  Maybe the WinME had updated the memory threshold beyond 512MB and could go up to 4GB stable for programs?  Those 2 years they might have noticed the increase in memory capacity in desktops and decided to alter some of the code.  I know the revised 98SE FDISK can see over 64GB when WinME came out but I haven't tested the WinME FDISK for any other improvements.  I know most people gave WinME a bad wrap but since you've studied the 9X code then maybe you could do the same for ME.  I would gladly try a WinME based kernel patch on WinME if it was an improvement over the 9X.  I can't see why ME would be worse than 98SE if they had 2 years to improve it.  The only thing that bothered me about it was the removal of the DOS boot and the extra bloat of the OS size.  Today both are addressed and no longer an issue.

Edited June 16, 2017 by 98SE

[Dibya]

Just now, 98SE said:

That is nice Dibya.  Does your sister prefer XP only?

According to this info page:

https://ark.intel.com/products/82930/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-20M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz

Looks like true 8 cores / 16 Threads.

Does the XP Device Manger under Processors show 8 copies of i7-5960X or 16 copies?

I will wait for 16 cores / 32 Threads to upgrade.

Yes it shows 16 .  She is windows 8 lover but some time use xp. 

She is rather happy with her mac book so called the pc is her but I use it most 

If now a days a iPhone or Android phones give most she say why to bother with big size pc.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Dibya

[dencorso]

Because it does not use XMS to create/manage the RAM, of course.

[rloew]

@98SE:

I'm not sure why you are obsessed with maximizing 64-Bit RAM. Having 30GiB instead of 29GiB isn't going to make much difference. You can only increase 64-Bit RAM by reducing 32-Bit RAM.
32-Bit RAM is more useful as it can be used by Windows directly.

PCI-E SATA Cards, like PCI SATA Cards have their own BIOS ROMs. They can be used to Boot a Drive. You will need a version of my SATA Patch to fully utilize them in Windows 9x.

IDE to SATA adapters are old news. They don't help with newer Motherboards that have no Legacy Ports.

My RAM Limitation Patch modifies the Windows ME Memory Manager. It does not copy the 98 Code. The unmodified ME Memory Manager can handle approximately 1.9GiB as compared to 1.152GiB for the 98SE Memory Manager.
 

[98SE]

15 hours ago, dencorso said:

Because it does not use XMS to create/manage the RAM, of course.

That's the most obvious answer but there is EMS and XMS and conventional so I don't see why not call it non EMS Ramdisk or other name.  It could have been called RMS or RLMS Ramdisk if it was to differentiate itself from EMS and XMS.

Edited June 17, 2017 by 98SE

[98SE]

9 hours ago, rloew said:

@98SE:

I'm not sure why you are obsessed with maximizing 64-Bit RAM. Having 30GiB instead of 29GiB isn't going to make much difference. You can only increase 64-Bit RAM by reducing 32-Bit RAM.
32-Bit RAM is more useful as it can be used by Windows directly.

PCI-E SATA Cards, like PCI SATA Cards have their own BIOS ROMs. They can be used to Boot a Drive. You will need a version of my SATA Patch to fully utilize them in Windows 9x.

IDE to SATA adapters are old news. They don't help with newer Motherboards that have no Legacy Ports.

My RAM Limitation Patch modifies the Windows ME Memory Manager. It does not copy the 98 Code. The unmodified ME Memory Manager can handle approximately 1.9GiB as compared to 1.152GiB for the 98SE Memory Manager.
 

The loss is greater than just 1GB and any huge memory loss that large is significant.  If we installed 5GB or 6GB a 1GB chunk is a noticeable loss and it's about maximizing all RAM if possible even if the OS itself can't use it directly but maybe as a Ramdrive it could be useful for storage of multiple virtual CD or DVD images.  But for the time being 9X/ME I would focus on the first 4GB for regular programs due to its limitations it can't really make use of more than that effectively.

I'll need more time to investigate the only SATA controller non IDE compatibility motherboard issues but I never had a problem running it on SATA on Z77 until you mentioned this.  The SATA to IDE adapter connected to an IDE to SATA adapter would be another test to see what happens in 98SE on modern systems with only SATA controllers.  But the 3rd party PCIe SATA controllers won't always work to boot directly so unless you've tested out and confirmed a bunch of them for people that will serve this purpose on Z170 and later chipsets then your SATA patch might not be utilized with no legacy IDE mode.  I'm starting to see the Z170 as a huge cut off point where 9X/ME is dead.  The lack of PCI slots means DOS SB MIDI is also gone even though ISA was a better option.  Without AGP and now PCI slots are mostly gone it is much harder to get a proper 9X/ME graphics card to work since most PCIe graphics cards lacked driver support.  The only way around this might be someone coming up with a 9X/ME 2D/3D driver for the Intel HD Graphics which is found commonly on most Intel CPUs.  Possibly an AMD iGPU equivalent driver could be created but that would probably be something you know more about.  This is something you could sell on your site if you have the know how to adapt it to emulate a nVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra.  9X/ME Graphics cards options are getting scarce and most of those used fans or overheated already compounding the problem.

The Win ME 1.9GiB as compared to 98SE 1.152GiB is a significant boost for memory support.  Perhaps a proper WinME kernel mod based patch could be done by you with relative ease for strictly WinME unless somehow you can find a way to port the WinME kernel to work with Win98/95?

Edited June 17, 2017 by 98SE

[rloew]

Whatever RAM is installed, all of it is available as either 32-Bit or 64-Bit RAM. Only a couple of Megabytes are actually stolen.
Most people would maximize 32-Bit RAM so that Windows can use it.

Except for one SATA Card that refused to work unless I setup RAID, all Add-On Hard Drive Cards I have tested support Booting. Except for two AHCI only Cards, they worked with my SATA Patch.

The Z170 is definitely a big step down in Windowx 9x support. Motherboard support for Hard Drives and USB have been lost.

The earlier JMicron based PCI-E SATA Cards work. I haven't tested any USB 2 PCI-E Add-On Cards.

The nVidia 7xxx PCI-E Video Cards work.They are not available new though.

[98SE]

1 hour ago, rloew said:

Whatever RAM is installed, all of it is available as either 32-Bit or 64-Bit RAM. Only a couple of Megabytes are actually stolen.
Most people would maximize 32-Bit RAM so that Windows can use it.

Except for one SATA Card that refused to work unless I setup RAID, all Add-On Hard Drive Cards I have tested support Booting. Except for two AHCI only Cards, they worked with my SATA Patch.

The Z170 is definitely a big step down in Windowx 9x support. Motherboard support for Hard Drives and USB have been lost.

The earlier JMicron based PCI-E SATA Cards work. I haven't tested any USB 2 PCI-E Add-On Cards.

The nVidia 7xxx PCI-E Video Cards work.They are not available new though.

I agree the 9X/ME compatibility looks grim since PCIe slots seem to be the last remaining option for graphics cards and those are pretty rare with functional drivers.  Since a lot of standard DOS programs don't work on Z170 I have to say it is the biggest kick to backward compatibility so far.  The death of USB 2.0 eHCI and no USB 3.0 xHCI DOS or Win9X/ME drivers.  Fortunately my DOS imaging software still works but there is no idea if Z370 and later will change that and when that time comes there is the "official" death coffin.  I offered some possible solutions in my post for emulating those graphics cards if you have graphics card driver emulation experience maybe you can make it simulate one of the best 9X/ME graphics cards using the Intel HD Graphics chip or AMD iGPU?  These are fanless and integrated and should easily have enough power to emulate something like a 6800 Ultra or maybe 7950 GX2 with your 512MB inclusive patch.  Another emulation project could be for the Voodoo 3D cards don't exist on PCIe.

Quote

Except for one SATA Card that refused to work unless I setup RAID, all Add-On Hard Drive Cards I have tested support Booting. Except for two AHCI only Cards, they worked with my SATA Patch

When using these 3rd Party SATA PCIe cards are there any special BIOS options you need to change for them to be detected and work as the Primary Boot controller?  Which two AHCI cards failed?

Quote

USB 2 PCI-E Add-On Cards.

I have a few of these cards.  What sort of tests did you need for these?  Maybe I can help.

Edited June 17, 2017 by 98SE

[jaclaz]

4 hours ago, 98SE said:

That's the most obvious answer but there is EMS and XMS and conventional so I don't see why not call it non EMS Ramdisk or other name.  It could have been called RMS or RLMS Ramdisk if it was to differentiate itself from EMS and XMS.

I call my (NT, not 9x/Me) ramdisk "George".

And speakin' o' names, I know a man ... 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058331/quotes?item=qt1045247

 

jaclaz
 

Edited June 17, 2017 by jaclaz

[rloew]

To Boot from a Add-On Card, you need to select it, or the Drive connected to it, in the Boot Order Menu.



The Highpoint Card that was shipped with some of the first 3TB Hard Drives was AHCI only, and it used a memory access method that would crash EMM386 and Windows 9x.



I don't remember the name of the other AHCI only card. I returned it. It was one that advertised support for 6 Drives and had 4 independent internal ports.

Non-XMS is a descriptive term not a Brand name. EMS provides no advantage and conventional memory would limit it to Kilobytes.

Edited June 17, 2017 by rloew

[98SE]

6 hours ago, rloew said:

To Boot from a Add-On Card, you need to select it, or the Drive connected to it, in the Boot Order Menu.



The Highpoint Card that was shipped with some of the first 3TB Hard Drives was AHCI only, and it used a memory access method that would crash EMM386 and Windows 9x.



I don't remember the name of the other AHCI only card. I returned it. It was one that advertised support for 6 Drives and had 4 independent internal ports.

Non-XMS is a descriptive term not a Brand name. EMS provides no advantage and conventional memory would limit it to Kilobytes.

I'll have to look for some PCIe SATA cards down the road for experimenting if it detects in the BIOS properly for selection as a Boot Controller.  The P4 didn't even bat at eye at the VIA SATA controller and no option to select it as a Boot Controller so I gave up and tested out the IDE to SATA adapter which worked.

Would the Non-XMS Ramdrive be renamed RL XMS Ramdrive or was there a reason to include XMS in the description.  I thought the XMS usually referred to Ramdrives above 1GB range and beyond.  I know you could have named it just RL Ramdrive to shorten it.

What were you looking for on the USB 2.0 PCIe cards that needed testing?

[98SE]

14 hours ago, jaclaz said:

I call my (NT, not 9x/Me) ramdisk "George".

And speakin' o' names, I know a man ... 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058331/quotes?item=qt1045247

 

jaclaz
 

I never named my XP Ramdisk.  But I think I could call it my XP "Life Saver".  I couldn't leave 29GB of RAM just sitting there wasting power doing nothing.

Bill Gates calls his "Bob".  His is 2TB in size.

[rloew]

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.
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.

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

[dencorso]

31 minutes ago, rloew said:

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

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.