Re: New pre-2.0.31 patches..

Rob Hagopian (hagopiar@vuser.vu.union.edu)
Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:23:48 -0400 (EDT)

How is that possible? I thought that the code only looked for more than
64M if the normal routines reported 64M... Thus, even if the probe for
>64M of RAM failed you'd still have your 64M and you'd have to use an
append statement or such... If this isn't how it works, maybe it should?
-Rob H.

On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Dr. Werner Fink wrote:

> >
> > I'm curious; what other systems does it break? I don't use lma's
> > memory patch myself (having a far superior one that I authored),
> > but since the largest difference between his and mine is that he
> > uses int15,ah=c7, it shouldn't be failing on other systems.
>
> few days ago ther was a mail on this list ... only 1M detected of
> 64M. Some BIOS do not work proper for this detection code.
>
> Werner
>