Windows Update + HDD comparisons
I had some more time to play around with my setups and am able to draw some conclusions.
I also did some HDD speed comparisons, I used some program I found.
HDD_Speed_Comparison - Google Drive
Windows 98 runs just fine but DOS is running remarkably slower. There is a very annoying delay when refreshing the menus of the UPL software. Windows 98 is taking a lot of resources it seems to run it and the UPL software.
In Windows 95 this is far less noticable. I does not distract when working with the software. You hardly even notice it.
So in summary, unles you have some kind of modified windows 98 installation, it really takes down productivity running it like this and that was definitely not the purpose of the upgrade.
In my case I have reverted back to windows 95, put VB6 on it and couldn't be happier.
Retro windows 95 is cooler anyways 😎
Cheers,
Bart
I had some more time to play around with my setups and am able to draw some conclusions.
I also did some HDD speed comparisons, I used some program I found.
HDD_Speed_Comparison - Google Drive
Windows 98 runs just fine but DOS is running remarkably slower. There is a very annoying delay when refreshing the menus of the UPL software. Windows 98 is taking a lot of resources it seems to run it and the UPL software.
In Windows 95 this is far less noticable. I does not distract when working with the software. You hardly even notice it.
So in summary, unles you have some kind of modified windows 98 installation, it really takes down productivity running it like this and that was definitely not the purpose of the upgrade.
In my case I have reverted back to windows 95, put VB6 on it and couldn't be happier.
Retro windows 95 is cooler anyways 😎
Cheers,
Bart
Some information to diet windows, I had searched last time.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090404050215/http://www.etek.chalmers.se:80/~e8gus/nano98
Wimborne.ORG/richard/shrinkingwindows/
NEWS \\ Winimize.com
And boot from ROM (to not wear the flash memory)
c't 11/99, page 206 - Booting Windows From CD-ROM
Windows 98 on CD
http://web.archive.org/web/20090404050215/http://www.etek.chalmers.se:80/~e8gus/nano98
Wimborne.ORG/richard/shrinkingwindows/
NEWS \\ Winimize.com
And boot from ROM (to not wear the flash memory)
c't 11/99, page 206 - Booting Windows From CD-ROM
Windows 98 on CD
Thanks,
I already tried the 98lite preview and swapped the shell and removed all i could but delay in the UPL is still present.
Then i got a copy of the professional version but i’m struggling to get a clean install and to disable even more items.
Will have to try a different 98se i think.
Ok I have installed 98lite Professional and disabled all I could find. Windows runs great but the UPL software still is slow. I did not notice any huge improvements from the OEM version compared to 98lite.
But I have found the problem, I already indicated it in my first win98 post. After the update there was no UPPER Memory enough to run and UPL and Basic options 3 or 4. Then i resorted in putting some drivers in conventional memory. This got the UPL to work but ran slow.
If you load all the UPL drivers in the config.sys program as DEVICEHIGH the UPL software will fly!
So the options are boiled down to:
-Getting more upper memory
-releasing more upper memory
-running the UPL_UI with 48kb instead of 64kb (you can change the batch file to have the UPL_UI loaded with other memory than the options provided by R&S).
-stick with a laggy UPL software.
Any DOS experts out there who know how to squeeze the upper memory to it's limit? I don't care for conventional memory as I'm not running any DOS program (or intend to) other than the UPL software.
I'll keep searching as well.
Cheers!
Last edited:
It will be hard to get more UMB. Typically available memory range is already listed in the config.sys EMM386 line. Less footprint memory manager such as JEMM or, proprietary (if you afford) QEMM or 386MAX may help, but I expect just a little kB or no improvement. Proprietary one have aggressive features but they may harm software compatibility including windows.
For the UPL software speed issue, quoting from UPD manual,
"If space in the conventional memory is to be used, the overlay memory decreased. The UPD program may be restricted in its speed from a certain size onwards, which also depends on the memory required by other resident programs"
So it may be loading something from the disk. Putting UPL software on a RAMdisk (ramdrive or XMSdisk ?) or CF card slot on the CPU board may help.
I realized it is good idea to install windows to the CF slot not only UPL software. Even it could not boot DOS, booting can be relied onto primary disk port. The CF slot is not bound to ISA bus thus it must be much faster.
In these days I had also poked around my UPD and finally returned to DOS again...
Windows require more memory than DOS but using 32MB of RAM, boot time memory count took some seconds, really PITA.
8MB RAM and win3.1 may be OK. I think Win3.1 and WFW3.11 can use older generation of SMB? file sharing than win95 which may be less compatible with modern PC. I have tested MS network client for DOS, that is the same generation I think. So win3 are less attractive. (Also it cost more than win95 to get genuine copy)
Finally I edited autoexec.bat so that, when I terminate UPD software intersvr.exe runs automatically. Client side can use DOSBOX emulator and USB to serial cable. Serial port is legacy but still available today, and will be next decade? In fact I haven't tested them yet but it will be OK.
As hardware upgrade, I put Am5x86 months ago. At this time I chacked it with CPUCHK.exe and I found it did not work in write back cache mode, even in the BIOS config I set it WB, so the motherboard does not support Am5x86 well...
I ended setting clock 40*3 120MHz, it take less time in the memory count than 33*4 133MHz. Performance wise, a little difference between 120 and 133, faster bus or CPU. Both are OK.
I did not go to 160 or 150MHz overclock because the voltage regulator on the motherboard are linear regulator and have very small heatsink.
For the UPL software speed issue, quoting from UPD manual,
"If space in the conventional memory is to be used, the overlay memory decreased. The UPD program may be restricted in its speed from a certain size onwards, which also depends on the memory required by other resident programs"
So it may be loading something from the disk. Putting UPL software on a RAMdisk (ramdrive or XMSdisk ?) or CF card slot on the CPU board may help.
I realized it is good idea to install windows to the CF slot not only UPL software. Even it could not boot DOS, booting can be relied onto primary disk port. The CF slot is not bound to ISA bus thus it must be much faster.
In these days I had also poked around my UPD and finally returned to DOS again...
Windows require more memory than DOS but using 32MB of RAM, boot time memory count took some seconds, really PITA.
8MB RAM and win3.1 may be OK. I think Win3.1 and WFW3.11 can use older generation of SMB? file sharing than win95 which may be less compatible with modern PC. I have tested MS network client for DOS, that is the same generation I think. So win3 are less attractive. (Also it cost more than win95 to get genuine copy)
Finally I edited autoexec.bat so that, when I terminate UPD software intersvr.exe runs automatically. Client side can use DOSBOX emulator and USB to serial cable. Serial port is legacy but still available today, and will be next decade? In fact I haven't tested them yet but it will be OK.
As hardware upgrade, I put Am5x86 months ago. At this time I chacked it with CPUCHK.exe and I found it did not work in write back cache mode, even in the BIOS config I set it WB, so the motherboard does not support Am5x86 well...
I ended setting clock 40*3 120MHz, it take less time in the memory count than 33*4 133MHz. Performance wise, a little difference between 120 and 133, faster bus or CPU. Both are OK.
I did not go to 160 or 150MHz overclock because the voltage regulator on the motherboard are linear regulator and have very small heatsink.
That's what i feared. However i'm willing to settle on a compromise by using 48kb instead of 64kb for my B10 option.
I have other plans for my UPL. I want to maximize the usage by using the computer as platform for FlukeView for my Scopemeter and for a TC-08 serial thermocouple logger from pico.
2 MB/s - looks very much like PIO mode 0 indeed. I think you still have the original (486) motherboard in there? Then the ATA interface is literally an "AT Attachment", i.e. hanging on the ISA bus. PIO 0 is all a machine like that can do, complete with the requisite CPU overhead. Any background activity that gets the harddrive (/CF) churning would make things very slow.
Chances go up with a replacement board, though it seems the UPL uses a very compact kind of embedded formfactor. I found at least one socket 7 board that seems similar in size, a ZIDA Tomate TX98-3D with a VIA chipset (82C585VPX northbridge, 82C586B southbridge). I know precious little about socket 7 era VIA chipsets to be honest, the first I came across was Slot I. You can get a 2001 vintage VIA 4in1 driver for Win95/98/98SE from here though, so if the new board also uses a similar VIA chipset I'd give that a shot.
I haven't done any DOS conventional memory tweaking in a long while now, so this thread is charmingly nostalgic to me...
Differences between 98 and 98lite are in my opinion negligible. For this case at least.
This is off course based on the later motherboard that i have.
I in the end stuck with the stock windows98 and it’s working fine for my needs.
Cheers,
Bart
To clarify my point. The ultimate point for the UPL is getting enough upper memory allocated in DOS. 98Lite does not help much with that. It does help with running windows 98 smoother by replacing keycomponents with windows 95 but it does not solve the key problem I had.
Hi all, recently bought a UPL analyzer and wanted to know how to backup the harddrive in case it crashes. It's a 2.5" IDE drive.
Best would be to use some kind of IDE/SATA converter making it possible to use a SSD drive. Also, the floppy drive is going to be changed to a SD card reader.
Thanks for any advice.
Best would be to use some kind of IDE/SATA converter making it possible to use a SSD drive. Also, the floppy drive is going to be changed to a SD card reader.
Thanks for any advice.
Hi,
Good purchase! 🙂
Doing a complete copy of the HDD is always an option.
The most important folder to backup in any case is the REF folder. These calibration files are copied back from the eeprom if they are not present but can save your calibration if something would happen to the eeprom. Having them somewhere is a good peace of mind.
I used the approach above many times and simply reinstalled the DOS and UPL SW due to the lack of tools i had to copy HDDs.
Now my UPL runs on CF card so i can perform a full copy much easier.
Bart
Thanks for reply.
But my main question is:
How do I copy the complete image of the original HDD to another ?
Take it out of the unit and try to copy it with help of a PC ?
But my main question is:
How do I copy the complete image of the original HDD to another ?
Take it out of the unit and try to copy it with help of a PC ?
Attaching the hdd to a pc and making an image on the pc is how i would go about it.
I’m using paragon which worked great in my cases.
Cheers,
Bart
OK.
How big is the original HDD in capacity ?
So I need adapters, one to be able to connect the original 2.5" IDE drive to a PC, and then a IDE to SATA adapter to be able to use a SSD drive instead.
How big is the original HDD in capacity ?
So I need adapters, one to be able to connect the original 2.5" IDE drive to a PC, and then a IDE to SATA adapter to be able to use a SSD drive instead.
The HDD capacity is irrelevant (i don’t even remember the size) because DOS limits the partition at 2gb. You can use a bigger capacity hdd but the main partition will always be max 2gb. You can off course add more partitions as you wish.
Don’t be too afraid for a reinstall. Many times this solved mysterious issues with units in production, even with systems like DOS. It’s also quite fast.
Check out my posts regarding CF cards, they might offer a cheaper alternative to SSD.
Cheers, Bart