syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) (12/01/89)
If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: 3.3 or 4.0?
gs940971@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (glen sunada f84) (12/01/89)
Definitely DOS 3.3. $.0 is too big and buggy.
gerten@uklirb.UUCP (Rainer Gerten) (12/01/89)
In article <48986@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: >If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >3.3 or 4.0? I took DOS 4.0, after working for several years with DOS 3.x. Advantages: - big partitions (but pay attention with some utilities !) - ems usage - dosshell - some improven commands +------------------------------------------------+ | Rainer Gerten | | University of Kaiserslautern | | West-Germany | | Mail: gerten@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de | | Phone: 49(631)205-2510 | +------------------------------------------------+
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (12/02/89)
In article <48986@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: >If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >3.3 or 4.0? DOS 4.01 supports my 106Mbyte drive much more elegantly than 3.3, it includes SMARTDRV.SYS, disk cacheing software. And it's 15 or 20 dollars more expensive, other thann that, I believe them to be the same. Chewey, get us outta here! kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (818)354-8771 Kaleb Keithley
dougm@palomar.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Doug Marshall) (12/02/89)
In article <48986@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: >If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >3.3 or 4.0? It probably depends more on what size hard disk you're going to use. If it's going to be >32Mb and you want all files on the same logical disk, then use the 4.0. If you don't care to have all files on the same logical disk, then 3.3 will be OK. I use 3.3. I heard that 4.01 uses more memory, but also has a menu interface for DOS. If neither of these are what you want, then you're back to 3.2. ---- Doug Marshall <Doug.Marshall@SanDiego.NCR.COM> +1 619 485 3494 <...!ncr-sd!palomar!dougm> "All of us is smarter than each of us!"
ORCUTT@cc.utah.edu (12/02/89)
The place where I work upgraded from 3.3 to 4.01 so they could address the 40 Mbyte hard disk as a single drive on their Ventura Publisher machine. They then had to buy a TSR manager to make the TSR's on the machine move to extended memory so they could run Ventura (I think it was 386-to-the-Max). The whole thing seemed like a waste of money to me.
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (12/02/89)
>If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >3.3 or 4.0? Depends on what size hard disk I have. 4.0 supports disks to 512MB. 3.3 does not. Partitioning can be a real drag in many situations. So if I have a large hard disk (>32MB) I would go to 4.0 for the large disk support. Otherwise I would go with 3.3 as it takes up about 10K less memory. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP SPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin Ziegler) (12/02/89)
>>>>> On 1 Dec 89 17:20:40 GMT, dougm@palomar.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Doug >>>>> Marshall) said: Doug> In article <48986@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: >If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >3.3 or 4.0? Doug> It probably depends more on what size hard disk you're going to use. Well, that is partially true. Of either version, you are better off with the x.x1 version. MS-DOS 3.31 also supports hard-disks larger than 32Mb. Since I have recently used both 3.30 and 4.01, I will briefly tell you what I think of both of them. MSDOS 3.30: Nice for a smaller system. It has the most features available in the 3.30 line and takes up about 29K of diskspace (COMMAND.COM only) and about 60K in memory (depending upon configuration). It does not have any noticable bugs other than it will not work with hard disks larger than 32Mb. It comes on two disks so is about 720K on the hard disk, counting all files. I used this until recently. Drawbacks which made me change to 4.01: I have EGA, and MSDOS 3.3x does not have any *real* support for those machines. MSDOS 4.01: COMMAND.COM is about 34K on disk, and takes up about 70-80K in memory. It does not have any noticable bugs (only used for two weeks, though). It comes on 6 disks and has a shell which is quite nice for a non-mouse user. Advantage: it takes advantage of my system far better than 3.3x did. Disadvantage that I've found: it is huge, and my disk space (only 30Mb on the harddisk) is limited. Hope this helps. -- Magyk (austin@bucsf.bu.edu,@bucsb.bu.edu,engc8vc@buacca.bu.edu) 700 Commonwealth Box 2094, Boston, MA 02215 "Yes, I'm the crazy person running an EMail AD&D adventure!" -- Me
mlord@bmers58.UUCP (Mark Lord) (12/03/89)
In article <48986@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: >If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >3.3 or 4.0? I had the choice, and went with DOS 3.3 rather than 4.01. It is rock solid, but missing features that 4.01 provides.. -- +----------------------------------------+----------------------------+ | Mark S. Lord | Hey, It's only MY opinion. | | ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!mlord%bmers58 | Feel free to have your own.| +----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (12/04/89)
In article <35976@cc.utah.edu>, ORCUTT@cc.utah.edu writes: > The place where I work upgraded from 3.3 to 4.01 so they > could address the 40 Mbyte hard disk as a single > drive on their Ventura Publisher machine. They then > had to buy a TSR manager to make the TSR's on the > machine move to extended memory so they could run Ventura > (I think it was 386-to-the-Max). The whole thing seemed > like a waste of money to me. They probably went to Ventura 2.0 about the same time -- that's why we had to do the same thing (and in fact, we are still running DOS 3.2 on that machine). Ventura doesn't leave much room for anything, not even video drivers! I would say that you could not even run 2.0 on a machine with the DOS 4 shell installed (haven't tried that though, so it MIGHT work ;^). But if you don't install the shell 4.01 is not much bigger than 3.2 (20K?, I can't remember off the top of my head) -- and most of the disk managers that permit multiple DOS partitions and/or larger DOS partitions take that much room. Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <-- Apply all standard disclaimers chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us
ianking@tcom.stc.co.uk (Ian King) (12/04/89)
In article <48986@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes: If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >3.3 or 4.0? DR-DOS 3.41 everytime :-) Regards.. ........Ian King -- Ian King <ianking@tcom.stc.co.uk> or <...mcvax!ukc!stc!ianking> ADVANCE MICRO COMPUTERS...you know it makes sense! :-) JANET: ianking%stc@uk.ac.ukc
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (12/05/89)
In article <48986@bbn.COM> syswerda@bbn.com (Gilbert Syswerda) writes:
$If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick:
$3.3 or 4.0?
It depends on what kind of user you are. If, like me, you prefer the
command line, there really isn't too much in DOS 4 that you'll need. If
you'd rather have a mouse-driven interface and don't have (or don't want
to buy) any other ones, DOS 4 will be of more use to you.
Also, the choice depends on what you want to do with your hard drive.
If it's over 32M and you don't want it partitioned, pick DOS 4. If you
don't mind having several partitions (or if you in fact want several
partitions, none of which need to be over 32M), you don't really need
DOS 4 for it.
But if you do decide to get DOS 4, MAKE SURE IT'S VERSION 4.01!!!
Version 4.00, if anyone still distributes it, may well be the buggiest DOS
release ever.
Personally, I'm still happy with DOS 3.20, although I've thought about
upgrading to 3.30 a few times.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
They say the best in life is free // but if you don't pay then you don't eatleonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/05/89)
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes:
<>If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick:
<>3.3 or 4.0?
<Depends on what size hard disk I have. 4.0 supports disks to 512MB.
<3.3 does not. Partitioning can be a real drag in many situations.
This is not universally true. Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 works quite well on
clones and also supports large paritions.
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Shortgary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (12/07/89)
> >If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: > >3.3 or 4.0? > > Depends on what size hard disk I have. 4.0 supports disks to 512MB. > 3.3 does not. "Standard" DOS 3.3 does not. But I believe that NEC has enhanced 3.3 to accommodate disks of greater than 32 MB. -- ======================================================================== Gary L. Barrett My employer may or may not agree with my opinions. And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions. ========================================================================
baird@cod.NOSC.MIL (John M. Baird) (12/07/89)
From article <1989Dec6.162625.17802@ug.cs.dal.ca>, by walker@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul D. Walker): > DOS 4.01 allows the command line to have multiple commands; for example > cd \dos;dir/w;dir/p > changes to the DOS directory, then does the two directory commands. > > I have not noticed this in the DOS manual that came with my version (PHOENIX > DOS 4.0) so I assume that it is undocumented. > IBM DOS 4.01 does not support the capability, either. Perhaps a PHOENIX -only enhancement. John Baird, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA USA
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/12/89)
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) writes: >> >If you had a choice (which I do with Gateway), which DOS would you pick: >> >3.3 or 4.0? >> >> Depends on what size hard disk I have. 4.0 supports disks to 512MB. >> 3.3 does not. > >"Standard" DOS 3.3 does not. But I believe that NEC has enhanced 3.3 >to accommodate disks of greater than 32 MB. And so does Compaq. Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 I am told will support DOS partitions greater than 32 Mb. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nsoc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) (12/13/89)
>>"Standard" DOS 3.3 does not. But I believe that NEC has enhanced 3.3 >>to accommodate disks of greater than 32 MB. > >And so does Compaq. Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 I am told will support DOS partitions >greater than 32 Mb. As will any copy of MSDOS 3.31. Microsoft added the large partition support betweeen 3.30 and 3.31 john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/13/89)
In article <29915@genrad.UUCP> jpn@genrad.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >>>"Standard" DOS 3.3 does not. But I believe that NEC has enhanced 3.3 >>>to accommodate disks of greater than 32 MB. >> >>And so does Compaq. Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 I am told will support DOS partitions >>greater than 32 Mb. > >As will any copy of MSDOS 3.31. Microsoft added the large partition support >betweeen 3.30 and 3.31 Does this mean that I can drop back from 4.0 to 3.31 without having to reformat my 60mb drive? Compaq 3.31 is the only DOS prior to 4.0 that I've heard supports partitions over 32mb. If MS 3.31 *does* do large drives, will it run on a PS/2? -- >>>> 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
norsk@sequent.UUCP (Doug Thompson) (12/14/89)
In article <29915@genrad.UUCP> jpn@genrad.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >>>"Standard" DOS 3.3 does not. But I believe that NEC has enhanced 3.3 >>>to accommodate disks of greater than 32 MB. >> >>And so does Compaq. Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 I am told will support DOS partitions >>greater than 32 Mb. > >As will any copy of MSDOS 3.31. Microsoft added the large partition support >betweeen 3.30 and 3.31 > While working at Tandon Computer Corp at the time Compaq had released 3.31 and prior to MS/IBM releasing 4.0x I had to grapple with the support of large partitions in our Tandon MS-DOS. Compaq couldn't wait (good for them!) for MS/IBM to release a DOS that handled large partitions and upgraded their OEM kit of 3.30 to handle large partitions (The major problem was the abilitly of the code and data structures in the kernel and the drivers to address more than 2^^16 sectors of disk) by increasing disk sector addresses. They "stole" a few unused/reserved fields from internal DOS data structures and added the address and other new fields to support this. The problem we found out was that MS/IBM did, in principle, the same thing by added the required new fields. In implementation, there are some mutual exclusive data structure members between Compaq 3.31 and PC-DOS 4.0x. One has to be careful when mixing drivers and "system" programs between the two. BTW: MS asked Compaq not to do the 3.31 release, but to wait "awhile" longer. And they asked Tandon Not to implement the Compaq scheme, but rather wait for 4.0x. This was back in Jan '88. -- Douglas Thompson UUCP: ..{tektronix,ogicse,uunet}!sequent!norsk Sequent Computer Systems Phone: (503) 526-5727 15450 SW Koll Parkway !"The scientist builds to learn;the engineer learns in Beaverton OR 97006 !order to build." Fred Brooks
norsk@sequent.UUCP (Doug Thompson) (12/14/89)
In article <4491@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >In article <29915@genrad.UUCP> jpn@genrad.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >>>>"Standard" DOS 3.3 does not. But I believe that NEC has enhanced 3.3 >>>>to accommodate disks of greater than 32 MB. >>> >>>And so does Compaq. Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 I am told will support DOS partitions >>>greater than 32 Mb. >> >>As will any copy of MSDOS 3.31. Microsoft added the large partition support >>betweeen 3.30 and 3.31 > >Does this mean that I can drop back from 4.0 to 3.31 without having to reformat >my 60mb drive? Compaq 3.31 is the only DOS prior to 4.0 that I've heard >supports partitions over 32mb. If MS 3.31 *does* do large drives, will it >run on a PS/2? > > See my other posting on the history of 3.31. Other OEM's MS-DOS sometimes support partitions greater than 32mb, if they roll their own DOS. I used to work for Tandon Computer Systems, and their DOS allowed for partitons greater than 32mb by enlarging the cluster allocation unit. For example, partitions <= 32mb would use allocations of 4k bytes. To go to 64mb allocation would be 8k bytes, 128mb 16kb, 256mb 32kb. The result is on a DOS file system will small files there is alot of internal fragmentation. Each DOS file system has a table in its boot section that provides all the necessary info on how to access the disk. Then all that is needed is a correctly written table driven disk driver. It was neat. Yet DOS 4.0x is a better plan. They fixed the design flaw of DOS and gave it true (at least 24-bit) long word disk addressing. -- Douglas Thompson UUCP: ..{tektronix,ogicse,uunet}!sequent!norsk Sequent Computer Systems Phone: (503) 526-5727 15450 SW Koll Parkway !"The scientist builds to learn;the engineer learns in Beaverton OR 97006 !order to build." Fred Brooks
BHB3@PSUVM.BITNET (12/14/89)
In article <4491@ur-cc.UUCP>, ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) says: > >In article <29915@genrad.UUCP> jpn@genrad.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >>>>"Standard" DOS 3.3 does not. But I believe that NEC has enhanced 3.3 >>>>to accommodate disks of greater than 32 MB. >>> >>>And so does Compaq. Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 I am told will support DOS >partitions >>>greater than 32 Mb. >> >>As will any copy of MSDOS 3.31. Microsoft added the large partition support >>betweeen 3.30 and 3.31 > >Does this mean that I can drop back from 4.0 to 3.31 without having to >reformat >my 60mb drive? Compaq 3.31 is the only DOS prior to 4.0 that I've heard >supports partitions over 32mb. If MS 3.31 *does* do large drives, will it >run on a PS/2? > > > > > >-- >>>>> 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 Compaq DOS 3.31 will work on a PS/2 with drives partitions larger than 32 Mbyte . The latest Zenith DOS 3.31 also supports larger than 32 Mbyte partitions. DR DOS is also worth checking out.