keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (04/21/88)
I've got Windows/386. It's OK; I need to do some serious RTFM to understand what I'm doing vs. what it wants me to do... But I wonder why (Digital Research's?) Concurrent DOS doesn't get more of an audience. Has anyone "out there" tried it? I'm tempted to get a copy and evaluate it unless I get some real seriou hate mail about it. Let me know what your experience has been... Thanks. keith Keith Ericson at TekLabs (resident factious factotum) Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383 Beaverton OR 97077 (503)627-6042 UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe ARPA: keithe%tekgvs.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET CSNet: keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (04/21/88)
CCDOS is not a windowing system (or I haven't used or seen that feature)
but does run multiuser or multiple sessions ala Xenix. I used an early
version and liked it, but went to UNIX. I have two friends who like it.
I think the lack of advertizing hurts them, or they may just spend their
bucks where I don't read.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -megovett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/21/88)
> I've got Windows/386. It's OK; I need to do some serious RTFM to > understand what I'm doing vs. what it wants me to do... > > But I wonder why (Digital Research's?) Concurrent DOS doesn't get > more of an audience. Has anyone "out there" tried it? I'm tempted to > get a copy and evaluate it unless I get some real seriou hate mail > about it. Let me know what your experience has been... > Concurrent DOS works fine. Try Desqview, too. DRI's Concurrent DOS has always been better than Windows, but DRI couldn't market eternal life profitably.
mru@unccvax.UUCP (Markus Ruppel) (04/22/88)
in article <10512@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) says: | | CCDOS is not a windowing system (or I haven't used or seen that feature) | but does run multiuser or multiple sessions ala Xenix. I used an early | version and liked it, but went to UNIX. I have two friends who like it. | I think the lack of advertizing hurts them, or they may just spend their | bucks where I don't read. | -- | bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) | {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen | "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me CDOS has a window manager to set up color windows on your main console. This allows up to four ( if you don't buy the system builders kit and generate your own system with more ) windows on the main console. Markus Ruppel Dept. of Chemistry Univ. of NC at Charlotte UUCP: ...mcnc!unccvax!mru BITNET: ACC00MR1@UNCCVM
troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) (04/22/88)
In article <3371@tekgvs.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) writes: > >But I wonder why (Digital Research's?) Concurrent DOS doesn't get >more of an audience. Has anyone "out there" tried it? I'm tempted to >get a copy and evaluate it unless I get some real seriou hate mail >about it. Let me know what your experience has been... > My last job dealt with the porting of Concurrent DOS to a non-standard Computer. (an 80186 that was non-IBM) and have quite a bit of experience with Concurrent DOS . At that time, I was working with Version 4.0, and back then it was mostly CP/M oriented. My job then was to make sure that the system worked with DRI tools, so I wasn't concerned too much with MS-DOS compatibility. At that time, about 60% of DOS software worked without a problem. Because of that experience, when it came time to try and find a what of upgrading the processing capabilities of my AT, I thought DRI would have a lot of their problems fixed with Version 6.0 XM. At first, it seemed like they did.. The installation was easy, and I had no problems running initial software...Then it came time for TSRs. I loaded Polytrons disk cache and keyboost tsr, and those worked. I was expecting everything to work at this point, but I started having problems when I could not get my serial printer to work at all.. I tried every combination in the setup program to no avail. I then tried set up the system to use my mouse (Logitech) and CDOS locked up completely when trying to load the mouse TSRs. Well, end of story at this point as the mouse was an important part of my hardware configuration so I ended up taking it back (Love those 14 day returns!) and am still looking for other options.. In a nutshell, if you are just going straight DOS (no TSRs) then CDOS has great possibilities (I think my printer problems were my fault, but you can't get support unless you send in your registration card, and that would have voided my return policy) Their menu generation tools, concurrent tasking, and print spooling features were definite pluses as an alternate to MS-DOS. Make sure that you can run CDOS with using the same environment you are used to before committing to it. -- Jeff Troeger Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 3153 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,csun}!ttidca!ttidcb!troeger
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (04/23/88)
In article <117@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: >Concurrent DOS works fine. Try Desqview, too. DRI's Concurrent DOS >has always been better than Windows, but DRI couldn't market eternal >life profitably. quite true!! one thing to be aware of is that DRI CDOS is the *only* real multitasking system for the PC which is DOS compatible. by real, i mean: preemptive multitasking & priority driven scheduler... i used to be an OEM for DRI, and am familiar with the internals of the versions up to 5.1... (they're at 6.0, now).
mru@unccvax.UUCP (Markus Ruppel) (04/26/88)
in article <2371@ttidca.TTI.COM>, troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) says: > ..... > I then tried set up the system to use my mouse (Logitech) and CDOS locked up > completely when trying to load the mouse TSRs. Well, end of story at this > point as the mouse was an important part of my hardware configuration so > I ended up taking it back (Love those 14 day returns!) and am still looking > for other options.. > .... A serial mouse driver under CDOS ( MS or Logitech ) can be installed running the CDOS.COM program first to create an environement where a process is allowed to take over interupt vectors. You have to "patch" the progamm ( using the provided 'pifed' ( Program InF ormation EDitor ) utility ) to allow for access to the serial port int vectors, too. Markus Dept. of Chemistry UNCC UUCP: ...!mcnc!unccvax!mru BITNET: ACC00MR1@UNCCVM
mru@mcnc.org (Markus Ruppel) (04/27/88)
[ Sorry if you read this twice, but the first followup didn't make it.] [ Markus ] in article <3371@tekgvs.TEK.COM>, keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) says: > > I've got Windows/386. It's OK; I need to do some serious RTFM to > understand what I'm doing vs. what it wants me to do... > > But I wonder why (Digital Research's?) Concurrent DOS doesn't get > more of an audience. Has anyone "out there" tried it? I'm tempted to > get a copy and evaluate it unless I get some real seriou hate mail > about it. Let me know what your experience has been... > > Thanks. > > keith > > Keith Ericson at TekLabs (resident factious factotum) > Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383 Beaverton OR 97077 (503)627-6042 > UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe > ARPA: keithe%tekgvs.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET > CSNet: keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM Keith, I do not know why CDOS doesn't get the audience it certainly deserves, BUT it is one of the best OS's ( THE BEST ??? ) for the Intel 80x86 series available. First of all it is an OS by itself, originating from Concurrent CP/M in the early days, starting with release 4 DOS support has been added. Version 5.x added expanded memory support transparent for application processes. Up to 8 MB of EEMS are supported. 6.0 ( released in dec- ember 1987 ) eventually supports DOS 3.3 function calls. These version numbers all refer to the CDOS version for an 8086/88/286 which is a real mode system ( somtimes called CDOS XM ). For the 80386 exists a special 386 protected mode system which runs virtual 8086 machines for each application ( CDOS 386 ). Its current release is 2.0 . Both CDOS versions are MULTIUSER, MULTITASKING OS's, i.e. you hook serial terminals to COM1:, COM2: or a multi I/O card ( 4 or 8 ports/card) and have a MULTIUSER system. On the main console are 4 virtual screens, and each terminal has one ( XM ) or two ( 386 ) screens. You switch between those screens by a one or two key combination. Each screen can run one programm or up to 255 processes ( in the whole system ) if the processes detach ( give back ) the virtual console after they are started. Additional system calls allow you to enable interprocess communication, interrupt driven serial I/O, and everything else you expect from a multi- user and multitasking system. One more thing to emphasis on: I said earlier that DOS support has been ADDED, i. e. CP/M system calls still EXIST, it is the native mode of CDOS. You run CP/M applications as good as DOS applications and read/write CP/M media the same way. I've been using CDOS for 3 years now and could not imagine to get back to DOS. At the time I'm writing a multi-process realtime control system for spectroscopy equipment as part of my Master's Thesis at UNC Charlotte. I could not have done this with DOS or any of the other semi ( DESQview ) or full ( PC-MOS ) replacements. As opposed to some other PR campains, CDOS CAN DO WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO. OK, lots more to say.... but it's getting late. If anybody has additional questions, I'm glad to answer. Markus Ruppel P.S.: Please excuse my English ( sometimes ), I'm a German. UUCP: ...mcnc!unccvax!mru BITNET: ACC00MR1@UNCCVM
igp@camcon.uucp (Ian Phillipps) (05/04/88)
From article <614@speedy.mcnc.org>, by mru@mcnc.org (Markus Ruppel): >> Keith Ericson at TekLabs (resident factious factotum) >> Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383 Beaverton OR 97077 (503)627-6042 >> UUCP: [uunet|ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|hplabs]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe >> ARPA: keithe%tekgvs.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET >> CSNet: keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM > > Keith, I do not know why CDOS doesn't get the audience it certainly > deserves, BUT it is one of the best OS's ( THE BEST ??? ) for the > Intel 80x86 series available. I evaluated CDOS-XM (version 5.1 I think); it seemed ok but not what we were looking for at the time. HOWEVER - it did trash a hard disk formatted by MSDOS 3.x. The product did announce DOS 2 compatibility. What that meant was that if presented with a disk with 16-bit FAT entries (a DOS 3 extension) it just screwed the disk up rather than saying "I don't understand this disk". Now, CDOS 5.1 was released well after DOS 3. You'd think they could have at least put in a tripwire in the program to stop this happening. It gave me a bad feeling about the whole system. Oh yes - I did have a backup of the disk! -- UUCP: ...!ukc!camcon!igp | Cambridge Consultants Ltd | Ian Phillipps or: igp@camcon.uucp | Science Park, Milton Road |----------------- Phone: +44 223 358855 | Cambridge CB4 4DW, England |
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (05/07/88)
In article <1436@titan.camcon.uucp> igp@camcon.uucp (Ian Phillipps) writes: >CDOS XM 5.1 did trash a hard disk formatted by MSDOS 3.x. The product did >Now, CDOS 5.1 was released well after DOS 3. You'd think they could have at >least put in a tripwire in the program to stop this happening. It gave me a >bad feeling about the whole system. CDOS has been know to bite a hard disk or two... i think the bug you refer to is long fixed, though -- CDOS 6.0 is supposedly fully DOS 3 compatible... i'm using 5.2, now...
mru@unccvax.UUCP (Markus Ruppel) (05/10/88)
in article <1436@titan.camcon.uucp>, igp@camcon.uucp (Ian Phillipps) says: > > I evaluated CDOS-XM (version 5.1 I think); it seemed ok but not what we were > looking for at the time. Look at the newest release 6.0 ( or 2.0 for 80386 ) which is DOS 3.3 com- patible. But anyway, what where you looking for ? > > HOWEVER - it did trash a hard disk formatted by MSDOS 3.x. The product did > announce DOS 2 compatibility. What that meant was that if presented with a > disk with 16-bit FAT entries (a DOS 3 extension) it just screwed the disk up > rather than saying "I don't understand this disk". I've been using 5.0, 5.1, and 5.2 ( after that 6.0 ) on DOS 3.1 & 3.2 formated HD's and never had a problem. Would you mind to specify how your HD crashed ? > UUCP: ...!ukc!camcon!igp | Cambridge Consultants Ltd | Ian Phillipps > or: igp@camcon.uucp | Science Park, Milton Road |----------------- > Phone: +44 223 358855 | Cambridge CB4 4DW, England | Markus Ruppel Dept. of Chemistry Univ. of NC at Charlotte UUCP: ...!mcnc!unccvax!mru ...!mcnc!mru BITNET: ACC00MR1@UNCCVM
igp@camcon.uucp (Ian Phillipps) (05/16/88)
From article <981@unccvax.UUCP>, by mru@unccvax.UUCP (Markus Ruppel): > in article <1436@titan.camcon.uucp>, igp@camcon.uucp (Ian Phillipps) says: That's me! >> I evaluated CDOS-XM (version 5.1 I think); it seemed ok but not what we were >> looking for at the time. > Look at the newest release 6.0 ( or 2.0 for 80386 ) which is DOS 3.3 com- > patible. But anyway, what where you looking for ? A painless way to let a MSDOS program expand over 640K bytes. I've changed jobs since, so my need has ceased. We also looked at other stuff from DRI. Specifically, the XM version didn't work because our machines had 640K to start with, so you couldn't configure in any extended (expanded - I never remember!) memory. Also, it couldn't run GEM in more than one window. (Let not one hand know that the other is shooting itself in the foot.) I did find a way, though, of removing 120K of junk from the program, much contributed by truly gruesome code from DRI - about 60K wasted in the AES & VDI libraries interface alone, and a further 40K caused by an error in the GEM code! >> HOWEVER - it did trash a hard disk formatted by MSDOS 3.x. The product did > I've been using 5.0, 5.1, and 5.2 ( after that 6.0 ) on DOS 3.1 & 3.2 > formated HD's and never had a problem. Would you mind to specify how your > HD crashed ? The HD had 16-bit FATs (it was a ITT Xtra XP with a 20MB built-in), which the C-DOS did not understand. I can't remember the exact sequence of actions, but writing anything to the disk junked the FAT. I only tried it once. > Markus Ruppel Dept. of Chemistry Univ. of NC at Charlotte > UUCP: ...!mcnc!unccvax!mru > ...!mcnc!mru > BITNET: ACC00MR1@UNCCVM -- UUCP: ...!ukc!camcon!igp | Cambridge Consultants Ltd | Ian Phillipps or: igp@camcon.uucp | Science Park, Milton Road |----------------- Phone: +44 223 358855 | Cambridge CB4 4DW, England |