Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
Jack R. Ellis

06.11.2007, 18:06
 

UIDE "Packed File" Usage. (Miscellaneous)

Thread locked

Now that UDMA/UDVD are integrated into the UIDE driver, its 7K file size
lets it be "packed" by V3.01 UPX into only a 6K object file. This saves
sectors on Lucho's "boot" diskettes and is how UIDE will now be offered.

Loading UIDE in "packed" form through the CONFIG.SYS file is usually not
an issue, as it loads "early" and should be placed by the system into at
least 7K of upper-memory. UIDE "returns" most of that memory to DOS and
declares a final upper-memory size of 1.75K, for caches of up to 200-MB.

If UIDE is NOT loaded early by CONFIG.SYS, users must be aware UIDE will
"unpack" into about 7K of memory. If DOS puts UIDE in only 6K of memory
based on its object-file size, a CRASH may occur! Users who do not load
UIDE through CONFIG.SYS should "unpack" it with V3.01 UPX, then load the
unpacked file, to be SAFE!

sol(R)

06.11.2007, 20:01

@ Jack R. Ellis
 

UIDE "Packed File" Usage.

 

That's very considerate...but as you mentioned, compressing adds potential for crashing/instability.

Most people using the tool probably don't care to save 1k --- and like the bootdisk makers, those who do will have and know how to use UPX, whereas everyone else will now have to locate/download UPX to decompress.

Just some thoughts :P

Jack

07.11.2007, 00:08

@ sol
 

NO "Instability"!

 

> That's very considerate...but as you mentioned, compressing adds potential
> for crashing/instability.
>
> Most people using the tool probably don't care to save 1k --- and like the
> bootdisk makers, those who do will have and know how to use UPX, whereas
> everyone else will now have to locate/download UPX to decompress.

"Everyone else" DOES NOT need to download UPX. XMGR and UIDE load properly
using the CONFIG.SYS file without any use of UPX. As it compresses a file,
UPX adds its own decompression code, thus the main UPX program is NOT NEEDED
by compressed files at load-time.

And using UPX for object-file compression has NEVER caused ANY "instability"
of which I am aware. If this were so, I would not be using UPX.

XMGR and UIDE are DOS system drivers, meant to be loaded thru the CONFIG.SYS
file. They load very early in CONFIG.SYS, and the system almost-always has
enough room for them.

Loading XMGR/UIDE (or ANY .SYS drivers!) at times OTHER than thru CONFIG.SYS
could occur when DOS is low on memory. The drivers may then be placed into
areas which hold the object-file BUT NOT the uncompressed driver. For such
cases -- AND ONLY SUCH CASES!! -- uncompressing the drivers may be required.

Users who DO NOT "play games", and who load XMGR and UIDE as .SYS files thru
CONFIG.SYS as the designers of DOS intended, DO NOT need to "uncompress" the
drivers, DO NOT need an actual UPX program, and will have NO problems caused
by UPX usage.

sol(R)

07.11.2007, 00:38

@ Jack
 

NO "Instability"!

 

> UPX adds its own decompression code, thus the main UPX program is NOT
> NEEDED by compressed files at load-time.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

> And using UPX for object-file compression has NEVER caused ANY
> "instability" of which I am aware. If this were so, I would not be using
> UPX.

Changes in 3.01 (31 Jul 2007):
* bug fixes
* dos/exe: fixed an incorrect error message caused by a bug in
relocation handling

Changes in 2.93 beta (08 Mar 2007):
* dos/exe: fixed a rarely occuring bug in relocation handling

These are bugs fixed in the most recent versions of UPX. All software has bugs, and there are of course more to be fixed. I've had plenty of problems with packers, UPX included.

I meant that "to be SAFE" it would be a better idea not to compress them by default, rather than save 1k that no one needs except for people who can easily compress it themselves.

Jack

07.11.2007, 01:33

@ sol
 

NO "Instability"!

 

> > UPX adds its own decompression code, thus the main UPX program is NOT
> > NEEDED by compressed files at load-time.
>
> Thank you for stating the obvious.

You are most welcome! My comments WOULD NOT be required, except for the
misinformation/DISINFORMATION due to "whereas everyone else will now have
to locate/download UPX to decompress". Flatly and completely WRONG!!!

> These are bugs fixed in the most recent versions of UPX. All software
> has bugs, and there are of course more to be fixed.

Thank YOU for stating the obvious! One or two likely-OBSCURE bugs (such
as are ALSO in all software), which have NEVER affected any of my drivers
packed by UPX, nor any software on Lucho's "boot" diskette files as well,
ARE NOT reason for "concern" by me. I trust UPX and will keep using it.

Jack

07.11.2007, 02:51

@ sol
 

Other Thoughts ...

 

> Changes in 3.01 (31 Jul 2007):
> * bug fixes
> * dos/exe: fixed an incorrect error message caused by a bug in
> relocation handling
>
> Changes in 2.93 beta (08 Mar 2007):
> * dos/exe: fixed a rarely occuring bug in relocation handling

I just LAUGH at many U.S. television commercials, which hope to "create"
some sort of problem, then try to SELL some sort of product/service/pill
to fix it! "Horror of HORRORS, my clothes have ring-around-the-collar!
WHAT can I DO??" Well, try WASHING THEM, you MORON, and THIS time, try
adding a 10,000-year-old "new invention" known as SOAP!!

Re: your previous comments that border on misinformation/DISINFORMATION,
both of the "Horror of HORRORS!" bugs, noted above, relate to relocation
issues concerning "DOS .EXE" files.

Since my XMGR and UIDE drivers are assembled as .SYS files, and UPX thus
"compresses" them as absolute images -- ABSOLUTE IMAGES, that require NO
RELOCATION!! -- Then DO TELL ME how either of the above UPX "RELOCATION"
bugs are of any POSSIBLE concern to me!!!

DON'T try any more misinformation/DISINFORMATION nor any more "Horror of
HORRORS!" TRASH to avoid the issue. Just ANSWER THE QUESTION for once:

HOW do the above BUGS affect UPX handling my "ABSOLUTE IMAGE" DRIVERS???

sol(R)

07.11.2007, 03:53

@ Jack
 

Other Thoughts ...

 

I often wonder, reading your posts, whether you get as mental in person. It also makes me curious whether or not you're some sort of hermit, as you'd have to be :)

You've (once again) failed to grasp the point. I pulled the bugs up quickly out of the changelog - the point wasn't whether or not they applied to your drivers.

To make it very clear, the point was simply that after all this time, there are DOS bugs being fixed, and that UPX adds a layer of uncertainty. A layer of potential instability.

This might not even be in UPX, it might be in a particular DOS flavor -- a particular amount of memory free. Perhaps a weird circumstance - what if it's loaded into 6k of remaining upper memory and needs to decompress into 7k? Yes, this will probably work fine, don't go off on another tangent, again - it's not the point.

(Perhaps the "bugs fixed" category applies to your drivers, who knows, btw.)

Jack

07.11.2007, 05:37

@ Jack R. Ellis
 

Comments Addressed To RR.

 

RR:

Time for me to say it plainly: Whether or NOT he is one of your "registered
users", you need to BAN "Sol" from this forum!!

Read my original post in this thread, which addresses a specific problem re:
the use of UIDE and what is needed to deal with this problem.

Read the reply by "Sol" in which he says "but as you mentioned, compressing
adds potential for crashing/instability". I said NO SUCH THING in my post
about one specific problem in loading UIDE, and I DID NOT say "instability"
in ANY of my comments -- THAT word was cooked-up ONLY by "Sol". "Sol" has
TWISTED my words merely to suit HIS "agenda" against file-compression, with
which I DO NOT agree!

Read also his comments that "everyone else will now have to locate/download
UPX to decompress", and my answer which in FULL was:

> "Everyone else" DOES NOT need to download UPX. XMGR and UIDE load
> properly using the CONFIG.SYS file without any use of UPX. As it
> compresses a file, UPX adds its own decompression code, thus the main
> UPX program is NOT NEEDED by compressed files at load-time.

NOW, read the reply by "Sol" to that, in which he addresses NOT the entire
statement but ONLY WHAT HE wishes to "answer":

> > UPX adds its own decompression code, thus the main UPX program is NOT
> > NEEDED by compressed files at load-time.

> Thank you for stating the obvious.

Absolutely NO apology, nor even any acknowledgement of "Sol" being totally
WRONG about "everyone" locating/downloading UPX!! And when I later asked
him to ANSWER THE QUESTION about how the bugs he "so quickly" posted about
UPX could possibly affect my ABSOLUTE-IMAGE drivers -- No reply (as surely
I expected), only yet-another of his PERSONAL ATTACKS!!

I say again: YOU NEED TO BAN "Sol" FROM THIS FORUM!! He addresses ONLY
facts that fit HIS "agenda"; he is a "twister" of words; he REFUSED answer
about bugs which he claims directly affects UPX and by-implication may have
affected my drivers (which they DID NOT, of course!); and in my opinion, he
is merely what my Mother would have called a "Shit disturber", plainly and
simply!! You surely can see OTHER cases of his "Shit disturbing" in
threads that involved me, Lucho, and Khusraw v.s. "Sol" before.

"Registered user" OR NOT, "Sol" is RUINING your forum, and he absolutely
NEEDS TO GO!!!

lucho

07.11.2007, 08:14

@ Jack
 

Solomon

 

Yes, Solomon is of no help to DOS users nor to this forum. He refuses to answer my questions about his past merits, and about the reason why he is here. Hidden behind the domino mask of his anonymity, he feels comfortable attacking Jack and provoking the users of this forum. I concur with Jack and others that it's time to ban him. The users of this forum will only benefit from this. We don't need someone to tell us how bad our DOS is compared to his Mac OS X. Neither Jack needs a psychoanalyst. We already know well everything that he is going to say.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
07.11.2007, 09:13

@ Jack
 

Comments Addressed To RR.

 

> RR:
>
> Time for me to say it plainly: Whether or NOT he is one of your "registered
> users", you need to BAN "Sol" from this forum!!
>
> Read my original post...
>
> Read the reply by "Sol"...
>
> Read also his comments...

> Absolutely NO apology, nor even any acknowledgement of "Sol" being
> totally WRONG about...

At worst, sol misunderstood and so misrepresented some things you wrote. But you misunderstood and misrepresented some things he wrote. So you are at least as guilty as he is of spreading misinformation/disinformation/lies.

> another of his PERSONAL ATTACKS!!

He started with a few technical comments. Whatever their merit, personal attacks were absent. But you...

> I say again: YOU NEED TO BAN "Sol" FROM THIS FORUM!!

You have done everything you accuse sol of doing. So you should logically demand that rr ban you, too. FWIW, if you do, you will have my full and unconditional support.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
07.11.2007, 10:34

@ Jack
 

Comments Addressed To RR.

 

> Time for me to say it plainly: Whether or NOT he is one of your
> "registered users", you need to BAN "Sol" from this forum!!

Sorry, Jack, but I won't do that. "Sol" (as "avoskov") just acknowledged potential problems already mentioned by yourself.

Do you really need my "help to fight" "Sol"? I think, your last e-mail shows your true colors even to the sceptics.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: YOUR "Publicity" UNWANTED!!
From:    "Jack" <invalid@invalid.com>
Date:    Tue, October 30, 2007 13:27
To:      "RR" <rr@bttr-software.de>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't need "publicity" for my drivers on YOUR website!
All your website offers me is ATTACKS, from some of your
"registered users" who ought to be SHOT, same as you!

You can try saying until you are "blue in the face" that
you have changed, and all YOUR attacks against me in the
past were by an "old" person.   I do not like being sold
"Snake Oil" by Intel and Gates, and I shall not "buy it"
 from you, either.

Your "new you" is BULLSHIT, in my opinion.    You proved
yourself a NAZI
, 6 months ago, and we all must DEPEND on
you to prove so again.   Your words are fooling nobody!


All I did, was reaching out my hand for peace as I have done several times before, but all I get from you are personal insults. So don't expect any help from me!

> Read the reply by "Sol" in which he says "but as you mentioned,
> compressing adds potential for crashing/instability". I said NO SUCH THING
> in my post about one specific problem in loading UIDE, and I DID NOT say
> "instability" in ANY of my comments -- THAT word was cooked-up ONLY by
> "Sol".

see Japheth's answer

> "Sol" has TWISTED my words merely to suit HIS "agenda" against
> file-compression, with which I DO NOT agree!

We all understood now, that you don't agree. That's OK, but I don't see any reason for another "war" or banning users. Different opinions are part of our lives.

> I expected), only yet-another of his PERSONAL ATTACKS!!

I only see personal attacks made by you.

> simply!! You surely can see OTHER cases of his "Shit disturbing" in
> threads that involved me, Lucho, and Khusraw v.s. "Sol" before.

If you don't like "Sol", ignore him!

lucho

07.11.2007, 10:50

@ rr
 

Good guys, let's move to the Udo's forum!

 

Robert, what you did is disgusting. You didn't have permission to publish Jack's message, did you? Same as A. Grech who published a message of mine without my permission on the Udo's forum. Now Udo's forum remains the only safe place for good DOS people. I leave this forum where anonymous masters like Solomon and semi-anonymouos like A. Grech rule.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
07.11.2007, 11:07

@ lucho
 

Good guys, let's move to the Udo's forum!

 

> Robert, what you did is disgusting. You didn't have permission to publish

Sorry, but I had good reasons for doing so. I had hoped, that you would understand me this time. :-(

> Jack's message, did you?

Did Jack have permission to insult me? There were other insults by Jack in the past, which I didn't publish, but this time I've had it, because Jack always tries to look like the innocent victim, but he speaks with a forked tongue.

> without my permission on the Udo's forum. Now Udo's forum remains the only
> safe place for good DOS people.

It's sad to see small DOS community split again by such useless discussion, but good luck there.

If you change your mind, you're welcome, of course! :-)

Jack

07.11.2007, 11:33

@ rr
 

THANK You!!

 

So, you prefer a "PM", then take them NOT private whenever it suits only
YOUR purposes, eh!!

THANK You for proving precisely why I DON'T trust you, and THANK You for
proving the content of my "PM" -- ALL of it -- is still quite accurate!!

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
07.11.2007, 12:02

@ Jack
 

THANK You!!

 

> THANK You for proving precisely why I DON'T trust you, and THANK You for
> proving the content of my "PM" -- ALL of it -- is still quite accurate!!

I didn't expect anything else from you. You TWIST my words to fit your "agenda". Does this sound familiar to you? It's the same you accuse "Sol" of.

Captain Ahab, chase your whale. :-(

EOD

Khusraw

07.11.2007, 11:37

@ rr
 

Comments Addressed To RR.

 

> We all understood now, that you don't agree. That's OK, but I don't see
> any reason for another "war" or banning users. Different opinions are part
> of our lives.

They are not "different opinions" at all, but derisive comments whose only goal is to provoke and to hurt. Supposing that you are a mature person, if you call them "different opinions", this is one of the most penible manifestations of hypocrisy I saw on your board. It is everyone's duty to defend his own honor, so Jack acted legitimately. It was not him who started personal attacks. OTOH, you could have stopped "in the egg" all this shit, but you didn't.

It was you who laughed in the past when Jack was ironized. Now you pose in an apostle of peace and in an "everybody's friend", but you don't apply the same rules for all. Ones are more equal than others for you. When after a long voyage I returned to DOS community I was badly impressed by the boldness of some of its so called members. You were one of them, Robert, and I will never forget this.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
07.11.2007, 12:13

@ Khusraw
 

Comments Addressed To RR.

 

> They are not "different opinions" at all, but derisive comments whose only
> goal is to provoke and to hurt. Supposing that you are a mature person, if

I don't think so. It was a calm and legitimate objection by "Sol".

> started personal attacks. OTOH, you could have stopped "in the egg" all
> this shit, but you didn't.

Tell me how! Whatever I say about peace-keeping has been ignored in the past or didn't last for more than a week.

> It was you who laughed in the past when Jack was ironized. Now you pose in
> an apostle of peace and in an "everybody's friend", but you don't apply the

see above ("has been ignored")

> same rules for all. Ones are more equal than others for you. When after a

Of course, this applies only to (bad) me, right?

> long voyage I returned to DOS community I was badly impressed by the
> boldness of some of its so called members. You were one of them, Robert,
> and I will never forget this.

That's interesting, because I'll probably never understand, what you call "boldness".

Nevertheless it's a pity to see another "war". :-(

EOD

avoskov(R)

07.11.2007, 08:34

@ Jack R. Ellis
 

UIDE "Packed File" Usage.

 

> If UIDE is NOT loaded early by CONFIG.SYS, users must be aware UIDE will
> "unpack" into about 7K of memory. If DOS puts UIDE in only 6K of memory
> based on its object-file size, a CRASH may occur! Users who do not load
> UIDE through CONFIG.SYS should "unpack" it with V3.01 UPX, then load the

The situation is rare but it is not impossible. Some computers have small blocks of upper memory and there is nothing impossible in 6K size of some block. But I don't see the problem - it is possible to make unpacked versions from ASM sources.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
07.11.2007, 10:10

@ avoskov
 

UIDE "Packed File" Usage.

 

> The situation is rare but it is not impossible. Some computers have small
> blocks of upper memory and there is nothing impossible in 6K size of some

Thanks for constructive comment. :-)

> block. But I don't see the problem - it is possible to make unpacked
> versions from ASM sources.

And thanks to Japheth, we know how to build these drivers using W(atcom)ASM. :-)

Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
15196 Postings in 1365 Threads, 250 registered users, 16 users online (1 registered, 15 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum