That the Digital Research that made DR-DOS was the same DRI that made CP/M. I read an article describing the history of CP/M and DR-DOS, and now I want to run a DR-DOS VM for old time's sake.
I was one of those outliers that didn't run Windows in the early 90s. I didn't have a lot of horsepower at home - when I had a local bus 486/50 with 16 MB of RAM at work, I had a 386SX/16 with 3 mb of RAM at home.
I ran DR-DOS and SuperStor (my co-sysop worked for Addstor and got comp copies of each) and GEOWorks Ensemble. With DR-DOS' task switcher, it was a pretty cool setup.
That the Digital Research that made DR-DOS was the same DRI that made CP/M. I read an article describing the history of CP/M and DR-DOS, and
now I want to run a DR-DOS VM for old time's sake.
I ran DR-DOS and SuperStor (my co-sysop worked for Addstor and got comp copies of each) and GEOWorks Ensemble. With DR-DOS' task switcher, it
was a pretty cool setup.
Outside of Geoworks, it was all Borland Sidekick, Qedit and Telix.
I was one of those outliers that didn't run Windows in the early 90s. I didn't have a lot of horsepower at home - when I had a local bus 486/50 with 16 MB of RAM at work, I had a 386SX/16 with 3 mb of RAM at home.
I'm curious how the DR-DOS experience would compare.
AKAcastor wrote to Poindexter Fortran <=-
Sounds very cool! I do remember hearing/reading about DR-DOS and SuperStor, I don't remember much about GEOWorks Ensemble (the name GEOWorks vaguely rings a bell but that's it). I heard that DR-DOS did task switching, but didn't know anyone running it.
I used DESQview in DOS 6.22 on a 486 to run a BBS (1 line) and be able
to multitask to run other things at the same time. It worked well for
DOS software which was mostly what I was interested in. (I had Win3.1 installed but didn't have much use for it)
DESQview, Qedit, and Telix are what I am running in my 'modern' DOSBox image. I never did use Sidekick, was just a bit late to the party.
Geoworks looked like a Motif window manager, with lots of small apps
built-in, like a card file, word processor, publishing, and so on. It
would swap itself out for DOS apps. It was a fun little system back in
the early WYSIWYG days.
DESQview in DOSBOX, eh? Are you running a DOS image inside of it? If
memory serves, DESQView needed QEMM to run.
Geoworks looked like a Motif window manager, with lots of small apps built-in, like a card file, word processor, publishing, and so on. It would swap itself out for DOS apps. It was a fun little system back in
the early WYSIWYG days.
I think a friend's family's computer may have had Geoworks on it but I would have only seen it exiting to DOS to play games. (Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego?)
DESQview in DOSBOX, eh? Are you running a DOS image inside of it? If memory serves, DESQView needed QEMM to run.
Yes, I am running QEMM also! DOSBox-X booting an MS-DOS 6.22 image with QEMM 8.0 and DESQview 2.80, also with Microsoft Network Client version 3.0 for DOS to mount a network share as drive D:.
Yes, I am running QEMM also! DOSBox-X booting an MS-DOS 6.22 image with QEMM 8.0 and DESQview 2.80, also with Microsoft Network Client version 3.0 for DOS to mount a network share as drive D:.
With the network client loaded it gets a bit low on conventional memory (418 K free in a DOS window inside DESQview), but it's enough to run most things. Outside of DESQview there is 536 K available (with the network client loaded).
What options are you loading QEMM with? I'm not running DV, I use a VM for each node/task, but I've got 593k conventional free. After network driver, TCP stack, and NFS. Some might depend on what level of
graphics you're using, I snaffled video ram on mine.
AKAcastor wrote to Spectre <=-
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\QEMM386.SYS RAM R:2 BE:N
Most of the memory usage is the network drivers, with none of the Microsoft Network Client stuff in autoexec.bat, I can boot with 633K
free. Maybe it can be optimized further, but this is what qemm
OPTIMIZE gave me.
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\QEMM386.SYS RAM R:2 BE:N
Maybe it can be optimized further, but this is what qemm OPTIMIZE gave
me.
I remember so much time spent optimizing memory, loading drivers in high memory, then using the computer for a couple of minutes, having it
crash, then having to isolate which driver didn't like being in high memory... lather, rinse, repeat.
That the Digital Research that made DR-DOS was the same DRI that made CP/M. I read an article describing the history of CP/M and DR-DOS, and
now I want to run a DR-DOS VM for old time's sake.
I was one of those outliers that didn't run Windows in the early 90s. I didn't have a lot of horsepower at home - when I had a local bus 486/50 with 16 MB of RAM at work, I had a 386SX/16 with 3 mb of RAM at home.
I ran DR-DOS and SuperStor (my co-sysop worked for Addstor and got comp copies of each) and GEOWorks Ensemble. With DR-DOS' task switcher, it
was a pretty cool setup.
Outside of Geoworks, it was all Borland Sidekick, Qedit and Telix.
My first PC was a hand-me-down 286-12 in 1992, and then I got it
upgraded to a 386SX-16 in 1993. At the time I didn't know of GeoWorks
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\QEMM386.SYS RAM VREMS
OPTIMIZE was useless here... it went through the motions and did its thing, but in actual use everything refuses to load high. I'm also loading, POWER.EXE, ANSI.SYS, RAMDRIVE and SMARTDRV in config.sys
Moving autoexec.bat, I've got SHARE, VIDRAM ON, PCNTPK (CrynWyr), PKTMUX, PKTDRV, XFSkrnl, PKTDRV and rlfossil. Again nothing in here will load high either.
I believe DESQview doesn't require QEMM specifically, but does require some kind of memory manager, and in every case I've seen, DV came with QEMM making it the most likely candidate. Pretty sure you needed a 386 also, so even if you had QRAM or similar for a 286 it wouldn't run.
I remember so much time spent optimizing memory, loading drivers in high memory, then using the computer for a couple of minutes, having it
crash, then having to isolate which driver didn't like being in high memory... lather, rinse, repeat.
Apparently, and I don't know if this one is spurious or
not, was not to load
SHARE high. If you did, it looked ok, and things would
assume it was there,
but it'd be non-functional.
On my DOSBox-X setup, using VIDRAM ON makes DESQview unstable. It runs at first, but if I open and close a couple DOS windows then it crashes. I think the use of VIDRAM (or rather, me not using it) is making the big difference in memory availability. I wonder what is causing the instability on my DOSBox-X setup and if it could be solved with a configuration change. Or is it as simple as changing my DESQview display adaptor settings? (currently VGA, with 'do you want text & graphics displayed at the same time' set to Yes and synchronized access set to No)
It has been a long time since I used QEMM and DesqView, but I seem to remember DesqView saying I'd need to set up QEMM in order for it to use some features related to multi-tasking, or maybe just for more optimal behavior. I don't remember for sure.
It has been a long time since I used QEMM and DesqView, but I seem to
I'm sure you're right for anything pre DOS 5. After that I think you could get away with EMM386. Locally some reported better results with one or the other. Never found much difference myself. Also aside from exploratory installations I never really used DV.
| Sysop: | tracker1 |
|---|---|
| Location: | Phoenix, AZ |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 25 (0 / 25) |
| Uptime: | 187:14:41 |
| Calls: | 367 |
| Files: | 1,364 |
| Messages: | 36,299 |