🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <844098206snz129.os2.7@artin.glassnet.com>,
Clive Humble <chumble@glassnet.com> wrote:
>
>Hi chaps,
>
>
>I've just added a few more chips to my PC.
>
[ output from 4OS2 memory, and GammaTech Sysinfo]

I think I would ignore these two and just rely on ...

>*********** System Information Tool -  ***********
>*********** Installed Memory Amounts ***********
>Memory Amounts by Operating System 
>Total amount memory detected by OS/2 : 97,900  Kilobytes 
>Total bytes of memory locked by OS/2 : 8,772   Kilobytes 
>Total amount of virtual memory free  : 651,456 Kilobytes 
>Page size of memory                  : 4,096   Bytes 
>Memory Amounts by Type 
>Base Memory                          : 640     Kilobytes 
>Total Usable                         : 65,152  Kilobytes 
>Extended Memory                      : 64,512  Kilobytes 
>System Board Memory                  : 65,152  Kilobytes 
>Cacheable Memory                     : 65,152  Kilobytes 
>*********** System Information Tool -  ***********
>
>What's with the 'Total amount detected' and the last three
>stats..?

I am pretty sure "Total detected" is what OS/2 thinks as the
total amount of physically installed RAM, and it looks like
the entire 96 meg was found.

The last four lines certainly look like only 64 meg is used. On my
machine with 64 Meg, the breakdown by type is exactly the same.

>What's with the 'Memory address about 16 Mb'

There are a number of "magic" addresses in the PC games; the best
known is of course the 640K low-ram, but 1 meg and 16 meg are also
special, which is probably why OS/2 reports them separatly.

>
>Is something amiss ? Do I bring my box down to 64Mb and buy another
>kite with the 'lost' 32Mb..?

Strange, my 64 Meg machine has exactly the same ranges; sure looks
like OS/2 is using only 64 meg.  There may be BIOS or other h/w switches
that you need to flip; I recalled there being some patch for some brand
of motherboards to go above some size (sorry about being so vague, but
it wasn't something that worried me, so I didn't look at the details).


-- 
Stanley Chow;  schow@bnr.ca, stanley.chow-ott@nt.com; (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.

 > In article <844098206snz129.os2.7@artin.glassnet.com>,
 > Clive Humble <chumble@glassnet.com> wrote:
 >> 
 >> Hi chaps,
 >> 
 >> 
 >> I've just added a few more chips to my PC.
 >> 
...
 >> *********** System Information Tool -  ***********
 >> *********** Installed Memory Amounts ***********
 >> Memory Amounts by Operating System 
 >> Total amount memory detected by OS/2 : 97,900  Kilobytes 
 >> Total bytes of memory locked by OS/2 : 8,772   Kilobytes 
 >> Total amount of virtual memory free  : 651,456 Kilobytes 
 >> Page size of memory                  : 4,096   Bytes 
 >> Memory Amounts by Type 
 >> Base Memory                          : 640     Kilobytes 
 >> Total Usable                         : 65,152  Kilobytes 
 >> Extended Memory                      : 64,512  Kilobytes 
 >> System Board Memory                  : 65,152  Kilobytes 
 >> Cacheable Memory                     : 65,152  Kilobytes 
 >> *********** System Information Tool -  ***********
 >> 
 >> What's with the 'Total amount detected' and the last three
 >> stats..?
...
 >> What's with the 'Memory address about 16 Mb'

 >> Is something amiss ? Do I bring my box down to 64Mb and buy another
 >> kite with the 'lost' 32Mb..?

Here's the deal with PC memory:

  Memory above 1MB can't be addressed in real mode (but this is not an
  issue on an OS/2 system).

  Memory above 16MB can't be addressed by certain types of ISA cards 
  (e.g. most AT-bus SCSI controllers), since the AT bus has only 24 address
  lines. (This is not a problem for EISA or PCI cards.)

  Memory above 64MB often isn't cacheable without upgrading the cache chips
  on the motherboard (this fact is often buried deep in the documentation,
  if mentioned at all).

Those are the reasons why those limits keep cropping up. As to whether
your additional 32MB is being used, I would suspect from the figures above
that it isn't, presumably due to being non-cacheable.

-- 
Andrew Gierth (andrewg@microlise.co.uk)

"Ceterum censeo Microsoftam delendam esse" - Alain Knaff in nanam