• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

386/DESQview/QEMM

Agent Orange

Agent Orange

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,647
Location
SE MI
Are there any know issues with DOS 7.1 (super DOS) and DESQview/QEMM on a 386 system. My 386/40 w/FPU is running about as good as it gets (DOS/W95), and I suppose one might ask why mess with it. Well, I do have this CF card and adapter that I was itching to install, but was having some second thoughts about DESQview/QEMM compatibility issues if I use DOS 7.1. :confused:
 
Check the Quarterdeck FOLIO database for a complete list of tech notes.

I think if you have the last version of QEMM and less than 64MB of RAM and don't try to load DOS 7.1 utilities high, QEMM works fine. Of course, with all those restrictions, QEMM offers little benefit. DESQView worked in that configuration the one time I tried it.
 
krebizfan said:
Check the Quarterdeck FOLIO database for a complete list of tech notes.

I think if you have the last version of QEMM and less than 64MB of RAM and don't try to load DOS 7.1 utilities high, QEMM works fine. Of course, with all those restrictions, QEMM offers little benefit. DESQView worked in that configuration the one time I tried it.
Click to expand...

Kreb,

Thanks for that, kind of what I was looking for. My mobo is max'd out at 32 MB, and it's a sweet running rig. This is the 386 setup you wish you had the funds for back around 1992/3. I think I go with 6.22.
 
Unknown_K said:
No idea why you would want DOS 7 on a 386 anyway if you are going with QEMM and Desqview.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily. It just happens to be presently residing on the HD along with W95. It's a dual boot setup. That's the purpose of the this thread; i.e. if there are problems with DESQview & QEMM I want to get that out of the way from the git-go.
 
​Update:

I installed a SanDisk Ultra 4 GB which was previously partitioned to 2/2. The AMIBIOS 1993 saw it as follows:

User Cyl Hds Sect

47 7351 16 63 = 3815 MB

It turns out the DOS 7 is not recommended for QEMM, so I installed MS-DOS 6.22. DESQview 386 and QEMM 97 installed without a hitch and the memory looks like this:

MEM Used Free
Total
--------------------------
638 K 67 K 571 K

I hope to find time to graft all of games and programs from the old IDE sometime this week.
 
Update:

The 386 DESQview/QEMM project was completed last night and I am underwhelmed. I ran into a lot of compatibility issues not related entirely to DESQview/QEMM. The SanDisk Ultra CF (2 GB/2 GB) card seems to behave erratically under MS-DOS 6.22. For example, with QEMM rem'd out and HIMEM.SYS/EMM386.EXE back in its place, many DOS functions failed to work. DISKCOPY couldn't find the 'A' drive. SMARTDRV couldn't find any upper memory to optimize. The editor in QDOS III wouldn't load properly, and there were more small gotchas throughout the system, however the overall appearance seemed fine but very frustrating. At some point in time, I will attempt to try a different CF card and see how it goes. For now, the old 8.4 GB Maxtor is back in charge of things. I would sure like to hear from people about some CF cards and any issues that they may have had to contend with.
 
Agent Orange said:
The SanDisk Ultra CF (2 GB/2 GB) card seems to behave erratically under MS-DOS 6.22.
Click to expand...

Did you partition the drive on the 386 machine? Also, why do you have only 638 KB conventional memory? If you're not using a DDO then that could be a sign of virus infection.
 
Krille said:
Did you partition the drive on the 386 machine? Also, why do you have only 638 KB conventional memory? If you're not using a DDO then that could be a sign of virus infection.
Click to expand...

No virus - it shows 638 with Maxtor setup also. Where the other 2 K is I don't know.
 
krebizfan said:
What does MEM /D show? Could be a good idea to find out what the 2K is doing.
Click to expand...

I looked at that and as far as I can tell there's nothing out of the ordinary. The system itself hogs a little and the BIOS says there's 640 available from the get-go. This 7.1/W95 setup has been around a while in this particular machine, and if there were any serious problems they surely would have surfaced by now. But like you, I would also like to know where the 2K went.

According to CheckIt, 9F7Fh-A000h = 2K and is not assigned to anything. Possibly a glitch in the BIOS - who knows?
 
Update:

I FDISK'd the SanDisk Ultra 4 GB to @ 1.9 GB for the primary partition, formatted and installed 6.22 back in and loaded a few of the DOS programs that were previously acting up. The BIOS reports a total of 640 K and the system says 638 (no change there) except MEMMAKER now gives me 616 K free. So, lesson learned: when is 2 GB not 2 GB? It's when you're dealing with MS, that's when. Remember, 1 GB is 1024 MB. Another lesson learned is not to mess with this stuff at 2 am in the morning regardless if your are retired or not. Not out of the woods yet on this - still need to load W95 on the extended partition. Also, I know Stone is out rooting for me all the way. :p
 
Sorry to give you more midnite work but this is completely incorrect:

Agent Orange said:
So, lesson learned: when is 2 GB not 2 GB? It's when you're dealing with MS, that's when. Remember, 1 GB is 1024 MB.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind...

1 GB = 1,000 MB in decimal format.

1 GiB = 1,024 MiB in binary format.

So it's not really the fault of MS. It's mainly the drive manufacturers, some of whom use decimal format and others who use binary. If everyone used the same format there wouldn't be any confusion. :)
 
Stone said:
Sorry to give you more midnite work but this is completely incorrect:



Keep in mind...

1 GB = 1,000 MB in decimal format.

1 GiB = 1,024 MiB in binary format.

So it's not really the fault of MS. It's mainly the drive manufacturers, some of whom use decimal format and others who use binary. If everyone used the same format there wouldn't be any confusion. :)
Click to expand...

Either way, if you use 1.9 you won't have the problem.
 
Stone said:
Sorry to give you more midnite work but this is completely incorrect:

I beg to differ with you on that point. I was referring to the FDISK function. When one selects what ever size for the primary partition, that's what it should be. In this case, exactly 2 GB was selected through FDISK and it turns out it's actually 2.1 GB. That's a problem with the software routine and it's universal. You shouldn't have to be a software/hardware engineer just to properly format a disk.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top