🚀 go-pugleaf

thomasr@cpqhou.uucp (Thomas Rush) writes:

]In article <1991May23.231255.6520@cbnewse.att.com>, langev@cbnewse.att.com (steve.j.langevin) writes:
]> 
]> I just purchased DR DOS 5.0 and installed it on my hard disk.  I'm seeing
]> what looks like some discrepancies between chkdsk and mem about how
]> much memory I have available.
]> 
]> chkdsk (and PC TOOLS) say I have ~590KB available.
]> 
]> mem says I have ~613KB.
]> 
]>Patrick Lankswert   ...psuvax1!ulkyvx.bitnet!pclank01

]Could it be that chkdsk is about 20K larger than mem?

Funny, I was just up in Tech.Sup. talking to someone about the
future;-) Bradley Kerth (sorry, no net address guys;-{ mentioned that
there was a bug problem with chkdsk.  It is now EXEPACKed.  This means
that in order to decompress in memory, it CANNOT reside in segment
0000:ofs (where mem is loaded because it is NOT EXEPACKed). 

An bug report (SPR) has been submitted to the development group and
their initial response has something to do with MEMMAX and disabling
lower memory.  No, I wasn't paying too much attention to the
details...;-)

Below is a quick map:

	MEM					CHKDSK
    (not packed)			       (packed)
------------------------------		------------------------------
Segment 0	MEM			Segment 0	Free memory ...
Segment 'n'	Free memory		Segment 'n'	CHKDSK
Segment 'm'	Free memory		Segment 'n'	Free memory

The bottom line is that CHKDSK is not smart enought to recognize the
free memory in segment 0 (below itself).  It only reports the amount
of memory above itself.  Since MEM is loaded as low as possible it
reports the amount of free memory above it (which is the correct
total). 
--
John "Frotz" Fa'atuai	frotz@dri.com			(email@domain)
Digital Research, Inc.	uunet!drivax!frotz		(bang!email)
c/o MIS Dept.		408/647-6570 or 408/646-6287	(vmail)
80 Garden Court, CompRm	408/649-3896			(phone)
Monterey, CA  93940	408/646-6248			(fax)