blanken@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (12/01/87)
I am interested in finding out some info on DOS 3.3. I heard it rumored that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier. If this is true, can anyone either tell me or direct me to a source where I can get more information. I want to know how to implement this new feature on an AT so I can image process in another program that has virtual pages. This is important. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
ugfailau@sunybcs.uucp (Fai Lau) (12/02/87)
In article <164300022@uiucdcsb> blanken@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >I am interested in finding out some info on DOS 3.3. I heard it rumored >that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier. If this is true, >can anyone either tell me or direct me to a source where I can get more >information. I want to know how to implement this new feature on an AT >so I can image process in another program that has virtual pages. This >is important. Any help would be greatly appreciated. > Also, I would like to know if PS/2 works with any Dos older than 3.3. I heard that 3.3 was written with PS/2 in mind, so it can take full advantage of PS/2's improvement (or difference, which ever you prefer). This way if you use an older Dos, it will either not work or it will not work as well as 3.3 system wise. I haven't come across a copy of 3.3 and I just wonder if it is worth upgrading, especially when it is eventually used in a PC enviroment, which is alreaddy running 3.2. Fai Lau SUNY at Buffalo (The Arctic Wonderland) UUCP: ..{mit-ems|watmath|rocksanne}!sunybcs!ugfailau BI: ugfailau@sunybcs
simrin@mis.ucsf.edu (Steve Simrin) (12/02/87)
Expanded memory is the only way to get around 640k in PC-DOS 3.3. Microsoft claims that MS-DOS 3.3 is "functionally equivalent" to PC-DOS 3.3. Ergo, it is 99.99999999999999999% certain that the 640k barrier remains. I have a copy of MS-DOS 3.3 which I have not looked at yet. If I find anything interesting, I will pass it on.
mr@homxb.UUCP (mark) (12/03/87)
In article <1094@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>, simrin@mis.ucsf.edu (Steve Simrin) writes: > Expanded memory is the only way to get around 640k in PC-DOS 3.3. > Microsoft claims that MS-DOS 3.3 is "functionally equivalent" to > PC-DOS 3.3. Ergo, it is 99.99999999999999999% certain that the > 640k barrier remains. I have a copy of MS-DOS 3.3 which I have not > looked at yet. If I find anything interesting, I will pass it on. I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3) mark homxb!mr
john@wa3wbu.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <164300022@uiucdcsb>, blanken@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > I am interested in finding out some info on DOS 3.3. I heard it rumored > that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier. If this is true, I know of no such feature of DOS 3.3. I have been using PC-DOS 3.3 since it was released in April on a couple of AT-clones and have had no problems. One of the things it *was* to do is enable larger hard disks than 32 MB. This is kinda true, it simply has built into it a partitioning feature. Each partition must still be <= 32 MB. Maybe this is what you saw. Other than that, I dont see too many large scale enhancements from the 3.1 I was running. John -- John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!john@uunet.UU.NET Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P
abcscnge@csun.UUCP (Scott Neugroschl) (12/04/87)
In article <164300022@uiucdcsb> blanken@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >I am interested in finding out some info on DOS 3.3. I heard it rumored >that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier No, no, no... DOS 3.3 is DOS 3.2 but better. 3.3 allows what clone users have had for a while -- support for file systems on a hard disk bigger than 32MB. Your partitions still have to be 32MB or less, but they can now all be accessed from DOS. DOS 3.3 is still real mode, so you are limited to 1MB address space, with 384K reserved for I/O, ROM, etc... leaving you with the traditional DOS 640K barrier. To go protected, you have to get OS/2 or UNIX (Uport, or XENIX). -- Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl UUCP: {litvax,humboldt,sdcrdcf,rdlvax,ttidca,}\_ csun!abcscnge {psivax,csustan,nsc-sca,trwspf }/ -- "They also surf who stand on waves"
simrin@mis.ucsf.edu.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <1189@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (mark) writes: > >I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3) > I don't think so. Breaking the 640k barrier is one of the 2 big features of OS/2 (multitasking being the other). If they fix DOS, it will cut the sales of OS/2 significantly.
brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) (12/08/87)
In article <164300022@uiucdcsb> blanken@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
<
<I am interested in finding out some info on DOS 3.3. I heard it rumored
<that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier. If this is true,
<can anyone either tell me or direct me to a source where I can get more
<information. I want to know how to implement this new feature on an AT
<so I can image process in another program that has virtual pages. This
<is important. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
PC-DOS 3.30 nor Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 will do it. I understand that it is
something that is supposed to be in PC-DOS 3.40.
--
harvard-\ ihnp4--\
Mr. Video !uwvax.................!nicmad!brown
rutgers-/ terminus-/ decvax--/
"... a can of deoderant that measures nine on the richter scale?"figlik@ihlpl.ATT.COM (55234-Figlik) (12/08/87)
article <1098@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> simrin@mis.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Steve Simrin) writes: >In article <1189@homxb.UUCP> mr@homxb.UUCP (mark) writes: >> >>I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3) >> > >I don't think so. Breaking the 640k barrier is one of the 2 big >features of OS/2 (multitasking being the other). If they fix DOS, it will >cut the sales of OS/2 significantly. In the documentation that accompanied the IBM DOS Technical Reference v3.3 was a note that stated that this was the last update that we would receive. I take that to mean that IBM is not planning to come out with any further DOS versions (although Microsoft may). /=============================================================================\ | Jim Figlik | | Physically at: | | Electronically yours at: AT&T Bell Laboratories | | Compuserve: 70047,3144 6R222 Indian Hill Main | | ATT&T BL: ihnp4!ihlpl!figlik Naperville and Warrenvill Rds | | (312) 979-3478 Naperville, IL 60566-7033 | \=============================================================================/ The usual disclaimers about not representing corporate/company views apply.