dap1 (04/05/83)
#N:ihlpf:17100007: 0:747
ihlpf!dap1 Apr 4 22:27:00 1983
Has anyone heard about DOS 2.2 yet? I am on a waiting list at the local
Computerland for DOS 2.0 and when I went to ask when it would be in, they
told me that they haven't recieved them yet because IBM has already replaced
it with DOS 2.2. I appreciate improvement, but jeez, this is ridiculous!
Seriously, I wonder if there will ever be some plateau where we have a
semi-standardized version of DOS for a few months at a time and if so, what
that DOS will look like. Judging from DOS 2.0 (2.2?) we're heading for a
UN*X flavored DOS. Sounds alright to me.
Still wondering what happened to 2.1,
Darrell Plank
BTL-IHglaser (04/07/83)
About Dos 2.2: I think your source is brain damaged. IBM doesn't
usually do stupid things like releasing a new version of a product
before the previous version is out. The only possible explanation could
be that Dos 2.0 has really bad bugs in it, but I haven't heard of any.
I've used 2.0 a bit (I have it but my documentation hasn't arrived yet)
and I agree that it's really a major improvement. Piping, filters, and
tree structured directories are implemented 99% like unix, with command
names like mkdir, rmdir and cd, and supplied filters named more,
sort, and find (= grep -- a sensible name change). Not having multitasking
hurts, but sources at Microsoft say that Dos 3.0, which will be out who
knows when, does. Evidently, IBM didn't let Microsoft expand Dos 2.0
as much as it might have, so the choice was either multitasking or everything
else. I think they chose right. As it is, 2.0 is 24k, double the size
of 1.1. It looks like the 64K PC might go the way of the cassette
interface.
There are, of course, short-term (hopefully) compatibility problems with
2.0. All 3rd party hard disks and special peripherals, and much 3rd
party software, is likely to need fixes for 2.0. This won't be as bad
as it might seem, because 2.0 now supports installable device drivers.
At boot time, 2.0 looks at a file called config.sys for info on these
devices, which could be either hardware (e.g., external hard disks) or,
I think, software (key handlers, terminal emulators). It'll take a little
while for manufacturers to supply these drivers (most were caught with their
pants down), but thier existence will help each compatibility problems with
future versions of Dos.
>From personal experience, Lotus 1-2-3 doesn't work under 2.0, but
Visicalc does. My 20 Meg Tallgrass hard disk ( a very good piece of hardware,
incidentally) is hopeless. Computer Innovation's C Compiler (another
terrific product) sort of works -- it's fine if your code is o.k., but it
takes a space shot reading error messages from disk.
For a good summary of 2.0, read the latest (April) Softalk/PC.
In sum, IBM seems to have balanced well the need to not disrupt too much
the installed user base while at the same time moving forward.
The Microsoft/IBM combo is indeed a good one, and is genuinely moving the
business world (or at least the micro business world) towards Unix.
Rob Glaser
(decvax!yale-comix!glaser)
glaser@Yalebillw (04/09/83)
#R:ihlpf:17100007:sri-unix:13500001:000:162 sri-unix!billw Apr 6 12:14:00 1983 Well, there was a DOS 1.85 that consisted mostly of a new command.com file, that had somthing like csh's hisory mechanism. maybe dos 2.2 includes this... BillW
johnl (04/11/83)
#R:ihlpf:17100007:ima:17300001:000:626
ima!johnl Apr 10 12:42:00 1983
No PC-DOS 2.0 because they're waiting for DOS 2.2, huh? I think your
Computerland salesman is telling you a story (a common problem reported
by Computerland customers from all over.)
I went down to the Boston IBM Product Center last week and bought a copy
of PC-DOS 2.0 off the shelf. Since the product center is the only place
in town that has recent PC hardware such as the PC XT in stock, I'd
expect them to get new software quickly, too. I haven't used 2.0 very
much, but it appears to work perfectly adequately.
John Levine, decvax!yale-co!jrl, ucbvax!cbosgd!ima!johnl,
{research|alice|rabbit|floyd|amd70}!ima!johnl