DOS ain't dead

IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 (Users)

posted by DOS386, 23.09.2008, 15:58

> Did you read the readme.txt

YES.

> and tried /S:127? Some BIOSes are unable to
> read a full 64 kB block with int 13h
> /S:128, which is the default and max

Failed to pick this info before for unknown reasons

Anyway, /S:128 works sometimes (no secure failure again ) ... but /S:64 indeed seems to help if /S:128 fails

Thus what remains is a cosmetic problem of IDECHECK's report making it look "very broken" what it in fact isn't

Rayer wrote:

> speed gain about 3x

I have 11 x "raw" speedup on one PC ... less with file access using XDMA (FAT sucks )

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

Complete thread:

• IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - DOS386, 10.09.2008, 02:41 (Users)
  • IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - Japheth, 10.09.2008, 07:50
    • IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - DOS386, 23.09.2008, 15:58
      • IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - DOS386, 25.09.2008, 16:00
        • IDE performance | new bugs discovered in IDECHECK - DOS386, 04.10.2008, 04:57
          • IDE performance | new bugs discovered in IDECHECK - Japheth, 04.10.2008, 09:01
            • IDE performance | new bugs discovered in IDECHECK - DOS386, 05.10.2008, 13:58
  • IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - rr, 10.09.2008, 11:57
  • IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - RayeR, 10.09.2008, 15:34
    • IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - Rugxulo, 10.09.2008, 16:03
  • IDE performance | bugs in IDECHECK, UIDE, XDMA, XDMA32 - Khusraw, 10.09.2008, 16:12