nather@utastro.UUCP (06/12/85)
We have been using MS-DOS as modified to resemble Unix command syntax
for some time, and have in general been happy, but there are a few
pitfalls.
If you include the command "switchar=-" in your config.sys file, then
the "-" character becomes your "switch" character, as in "format -8 a:"
but there are side effects. A file named "PC-Write" will not be found,
because the dumb parser takes the dash as a switch. You *can* find it
by the kluge "PC?Write" but try explaining that to a novice.
On the whole, we find the substitution "switchar=\" a better choice.
This means you must swap "/" for "\" (and vice versa) everywhere in
the DOS manual, but this causes less brain damage than constantly
fighting "/" vs. "\" in going between MS-DOS and Unix.
Beware that this substitution is *not* blessed by Microsoft &| IBM.
Another pitfall: "backup" will write files to disk with "/" as the
separator, but "restore" can't read them, so your backup is essentially
useless. (I spent one *very* long night changing "/" to "\" with a text
editor to recover 8 MB of files on 12 floppy disks, and I don't recommend
it). But we never use "backup" and "restore" anyway, since they are
seriously unreliable.
Good things: MS-DOS Kermit and several other smart programs accept
either "\" or "/" as path separators and remain unconfused. And it *is*
soothing not to worry about which operating system you are talking to.
--
Ed Nather
Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPAandy@sdcarl.UUCP (Andrew Voelkel) (06/17/85)
Thank you thank you thank you to everyone who answered. I guess there must have been some interest. Sorry to clog the net on the issue, but it occurs to me that the discussion could be capped by some very knowledgable MSDOSer explaining the tradeoffs between 2.0 and 3.0. I have heard rumours that 2.x is faster. I have also heard that one uses the disk more efficiently than the other. Does 2.x have vdisk.sys? What else important is different? Sorry to bother you knowledgable types, but I think there are many confused souls like me out there that don't know which one to run. Since I have to reformat my disk to unclog a directory, I'm anxious to install the right DOS this time around. thanks in advance
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/20/85)
One is probably OK for 6 months to a year staying with DOS 2.1. After that, there are simply going to be too many bells and whistles that software developers are going to make use of. Already there is the IBM PC Network. There will be more. While it may be prudent to hang onto DOS 2.1 until DOS 4.0 comes out if you are not networking, I wouldn't build any skyscrapers that preclude advancing past DOS 2.1 unless your needs are just *totally* static. -- / \ Bill Crews ( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc \__/ Austin, Texas [ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc