roller@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Jason Deines) (02/05/90)
I've always been puzzled as to why DOS 4.01 insists on having SHARE.EXE loaded when dealing with large partitions. All it says in the manual is something to the effect that "SHARE must be loaded, or unpredictable behavior will result". Thing is, I've had people tell me that's a lot of nonsense, and that they've run without SHARE for months with no problem at all. If that's true, I've got a related question: how do you stop DOS from sqawking at you about the lack of SHARE at bootup time? Would someone please enlighten me? Thanks. Jason Deines Academic Information Resources roller@jessica.stanford.edu Sweet Hall, Third Floor (415) 723-1055 Stanford, CA 94305
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/05/90)
In article <1232@shelby.Stanford.EDU> roller@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Jason Deines) writes: >I've always been puzzled as to why DOS 4.01 insists on having SHARE.EXE >loaded when dealing with large partitions. All it says in the manual is >something to the effect that "SHARE must be loaded, or unpredictable >behavior will result". Thing is, I've had people tell me that's a lot of >nonsense, and that they've run without SHARE for months with no problem at >all. I have an 80 mb disk, and DOS 4.01, and have never loaded share. So far I have had no problems. The purpose of share is supposed to be to support file and record locking in a multiuser situation. >If that's true, I've got a related question: how do you stop DOS from >sqawking at you about the lack of SHARE at bootup time? I don't know how to make it stop squawking. I just ignore it. DOS takes the enlightened view that anybody with a disk bigger than 32 mb must be running a network. Who else would have a disk that big? -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
gcook@cps3xx.UUCP (Greg Cook) (02/05/90)
From article <25ccd167.2d5d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, by jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck): > > In article <1232@shelby.Stanford.EDU> roller@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Jason Deines) writes: >>I've always been puzzled as to why DOS 4.01 insists on having SHARE.EXE >>loaded when dealing with large partitions. All it says in the manual is >>something to the effect that "SHARE must be loaded, or unpredictable >>behavior will result". Thing is, I've had people tell me that's a lot of >>nonsense, and that they've run without SHARE for months with no problem at >>all. > > I have an 80 mb disk, and DOS 4.01, and have never loaded share. So far > I have had no problems. The purpose of share is supposed to be to support > file and record locking in a multiuser situation. I seem to remember having some problems when I disabled share. I don`t remember what kind of problems, but I left it on. Later I made two partitions on my hard disk so that one wasn`t >32meg because with share I couldn't get some of my older software to work. This has worked out fine for me so far. But eventually, I`ll want a larger partition. So, I'm asking, is this true? Nobody has experienced any problems without share loaded? I was under the impression that share keeps track of where the files are and without it, it may not be able to find a file it is looking for. Am I way off base? Does anybody know for sure the facts? Many thanks for your input. ========================================================================= Greg Cook Chemistry IS life! Michigan State University Watch for the next generation of Enamines gcook@horus.cem.msu.edu coming to a Journal near you!
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/06/90)
In article <6307@cps3xx.UUCP> gcook@cps3xx.UUCP (Greg Cook) writes: >From article <25ccd167.2d5d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, by jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck): >> I have an 80 mb disk, and DOS 4.01, and have never loaded share. So far >> I have had no problems. The purpose of share is supposed to be to support >> file and record locking in a multiuser situation. > I may have spoken too soon. Now it is true that I have not put the SHARE command into my AUTOEXEC.BAT file. But yesterday I downloaded SYSID47 from chyde.uwasa.fi, and when I ran it, it told me that SHARE was loaded! Looking in my DOS manual, it says, "Share is automatically loaded if you have a hard disk which is greater than 32 megabytes in a single partition". So apparently, if you have a disk > 32 mb but with no partitions > 32 mb, DOS just warns you, but doesn't do anything. If you have a partition > 32 mb, it loads SHARE whether you like it or not. Somewhere on the net I vaguely recall seeing some guru from Microsoft explaining why you need Share for large partitions. I didn't really follow what he said, but probably it is better to leave well enough alone, and not try to disable Share for large partitions! -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (02/06/90)
In article <1232@shelby.Stanford.EDU> roller@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Jason Deines) writes: >I've always been puzzled as to why DOS 4.01 insists on having SHARE.EXE >loaded when dealing with large partitions. All it says in the manual is >something to the effect that "SHARE must be loaded, or unpredictable >behavior will result". Thing is, I've had people tell me that's a lot of >nonsense, and that they've run without SHARE for months with no problem at >all. >If that's true, I've got a related question: how do you stop DOS from >sqawking at you about the lack of SHARE at bootup time? DOS automatically loads share on large volumes. If you don't want DOS to squawk about it, put it in your CONFIG.SYS file with INSTALL. Chewey, get us outta here! kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs Kaleb Keithley
dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) (02/06/90)
In article <6307@cps3xx.UUCP> gcook@cps3xx.UUCP (Greg Cook) writes: >So, I'm asking, is this true? Nobody has experienced any problems without >share loaded? I was under the impression that share keeps track of >where the files are and without it, it may not be able to find a file >it is looking for. Am I way off base? Does anybody know for sure >the facts? Programs that use the DOS 1.x style FCB file services can't handle disks with more than 64K of sectors, unless SHARE is loaded. Part of the reserved section of a file control block contains a single word giving the disk sector of the directory entry. I don't know what will happen if you try to run one of these ancient programs on a huge disk with too many sectors, but wouldn't really want to try. This information is contained in Ralf Brown's interrupt list, available somewhere near you. Duncan Murdoch
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (02/06/90)
In article <25cdc295.3d1c@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes: > >I may have spoken too soon. Now it is true that I have not put the SHARE >command into my AUTOEXEC.BAT file. But yesterday I downloaded SYSID47 from >chyde.uwasa.fi, and when I ran it, it told me that SHARE was loaded! Looking >in my DOS manual, it says, "Share is automatically loaded if you have a >hard disk which is greater than 32 megabytes in a single partition". So >apparently, if you have a disk > 32 mb but with no partitions > 32 mb, DOS >just warns you, but doesn't do anything. If you have a partition > 32 mb, >it loads SHARE whether you like it or not. Very interesting. I have a PS/2 55sx with a 60mb drive and DOS 4.01 (well, I used to - switched to 3.31, though). The whole drive is configured as one partition. I kept on getting the warnings about SHARE, and since I run MS Windows/386 with several standard apps at once, I thought it might be a good idea anyway. So, I put the line in my config.sys to load share. How does it load it automatically? Do you keep DOS and all of its files (specificall SHARE.EXE) in the root dir? I have my copy of DOS in a sub-dir. Maybe it would load share by itself if it could find it... Comments? -- >>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * University of Rochester * will screw it up." * Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/06/90)
>In some article I wrote: >>it loads SHARE whether you like it or not. >Someone else commented: >Very interesting. I have a PS/2 55sx with a 60mb drive and DOS 4.01 (well, I >used to - switched to 3.31, though). The whole drive is configured as one >partition. I kept on getting the warnings about SHARE, and since I run MS >Windows/386 with several standard apps at once, I thought it might be a good >idea anyway. So, I put the line in my config.sys to load share. > >How does it load it automatically? Do you keep DOS and all of its files >(specificall SHARE.EXE) in the root dir? I have my copy of DOS in a sub-dir. >Maybe it would load share by itself if it could find it... I received a helpful e-mail message from Michael Kersenbrock at Tektronix. He claims that if you have a shell= command in your config.sys file, it will use the path that you give to look for SHARE.EXE. If it doesn't find it there, it looks in the root of the boot drive. In my case, I have a shell=c:\dos\command.com /p /e:1024 line. And I have SHARE.EXE in the \dos directory. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
lance@helios.ucsc.edu (Lance Bresee) (02/06/90)
In article <5073@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: > >How does it load it automatically? Do you keep DOS and all of its files >(specificall SHARE.EXE) in the root dir? I have my copy of DOS in a sub-dir. >Maybe it would load share by itself if it could find it... > >Comments? > copy con autoexec.bat c:\dos\share ^z lance
ajai@sce.carleton.ca (Ajai Sehgal) (02/10/90)
> in my DOS manual, it says, "Share is automatically loaded if you have a > it loads SHARE whether you like it or not. I solved this by deleting Share.exe from my hard disk, no error messages, and no problems after 6 months of use.
jcb2647@cec1.wustl.edu (James Christopher Beard) (02/13/90)
Concerning debate about whether SHARE needs to be loaded or not to run large disk volumes under MS-DOS v 4.01: I have never taken any steps to load SHARE, either; it is certainly not in my CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT. But the MS-DOS documentation indicates that the program is loaded AUTOMATICALLY when a large partition is used. Running "mem /program" on the system I use, which includes a 65-MB partition, shows that SHARE is indeed loaded. I suspect that MS-DOS loads it automatically, as advertised, and only squawks when and if it can't find the code.
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (02/13/90)
jcb2647@cec1.wustl.edu (James Christopher Beard) writes: >Concerning debate about whether SHARE needs to be loaded or not to run >large disk volumes under MS-DOS v 4.01: I have never taken any steps >to load SHARE, either; it is certainly not in my CONFIG.SYS or >AUTOEXEC.BAT. But the MS-DOS documentation indicates that the program >is loaded AUTOMATICALLY when a large partition is used. Running "mem >/program" on the system I use, which includes a 65-MB partition, shows >that SHARE is indeed loaded. I suspect that MS-DOS loads it >automatically, as advertised, and only squawks when and if it can't >find the code. My understanding is that if SHARE.EXE is in the root, it will automagically load it at boot time. Otherwise, one needs a line in the CONFIG.SYS like: INSTALL=[drive:][path]SHARE.EXE -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@wind55.seri.gov Senior Computer Engineer VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/14/90)
As someone who installed DOS 4.01 and then deinstalled it and reverted
to 3.3, I wonder why you guys use it? I run out of memory a lot and DOS
4.01 wasn't helping. Do you have files larger than 32 megabytes? I
really don't mind the partitions I use on 3.3. I keep programs on c: and
backed it up once. Data is on d: and backed up daily. This is actually a
convenience.
Am I missing any important features of 4.01 besides large drives?
--
Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
When guns are outlawed, only governments will have guns.keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (02/20/90)
In article <29160@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@pepsi.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
<Do you have files larger than 32 megabytes? I
<really don't mind the partitions I use on 3.3. I keep programs on c: and
<backed it up once. Data is on d: and backed up daily. This is actually a
<convenience.
<
<Am I missing any important features of 4.01 besides large drives?
With DOS 3.3 I had a bunch of logical drives (up to drive k: or l: as I recall,
all but the last were 32 Megabytes) all JOINed to c: with DOS's command of that
name and that was fine. Except there is a LOT of software (PCTools, file-man-
agers, add-on DOS shells) that can't handle JOINed drives. Seems every time
I looked at another (neato-keen) program it broke if it had to deal with my
JOINed-drives-as-subdirectories scheme. Other than that I'd RATHER use 3.3.
I never did get around to pounding the D.R. (as in Digital Research) DOS
around enough to determine its 3.3<->4.0 capability and compatibility.
Maybe I should load it up on a drive and play with it for a while. (D.R. DOS
supports >32 megabyte partitions but in all other respects (?) is equivalent
or slightly extended from DOS3.3.)
kEITHe