melvinc@sim.Berkeley.EDU (Melvin Chan) (11/30/86)
I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! Melvin Chan
pre1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Grant A. Prellwitz) (12/01/86)
In article <1157@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> melvinc@sim.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Melvin Chan) writes: >I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me >the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! The major differences that I have found are the following bugs: DOS3.2 restore doesn't seem to work. Therefore the entire backup/restore package isn't distributed with the system. It is very finicky about ^S/^Q; if you follow a ^S with anything else, the machine may lock up on you, requiring a cold boot. There is a problem with some programs in dealing with something in the way they have implemented the stack register (I think). Anyway, some programs, notably Procomm 2.4.2, will occassionally lock up under <ctrl><break>. There is a fix avail. for Procomm. Please note that my experiences with these are PC DOS3.1 and Kaypro's version of MS-DOS 3.2. I don't know how many of these bugs are specific to Kaypros, though I don't think any of them are, it is a VERY compatible machine. Grant Prellwitz I don't need disclaimers, I work for myself. !ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!pre1 CIS 76474,2121
cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (12/01/86)
In article <1157@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> melvinc@sim.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Melvin Chan) writes: >I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me >the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! > >Melvin Chan One major difference is the XCOPY command, which allows one to copy not only all the files in the directory, but also all files in subdirectories below the directory, if the appropriate switch is used. (Haven't actually tried it, so can't tell you how well it works.) Another is support for 720k diskettes. 3.2 also has a REPLACE command, which allows one to replace all files in a target that do not exist in the source. Again, haven't tried it, but from the documentation I gather this means that (e.g.) copy *.bat b: will only copy to B: batch files from source that aren't already on B: (COPY will simply overwrite). By the way, I'm talking about PC-DOS. Unless one needed the new floppy support, I'm not sure I would consider it worthwhile to upgrade, since it's not really buying you much in the way of new functionality (not like the difference between 3.0 and 3.1, with the addition of the SUBST command in the latter, for example). I've also seen these postings about BACKUP/RESTORE bugs, which might be a serious reason for _not_ upgrading, at least not before verifying the truth of these reports. -- Charles Blair ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb The University of Chicago PMRCJDB@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet
cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (12/02/86)
In article <1157@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> melvinc@sim.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Melvin Chan) writes: >I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me >the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! > >Melvin Chan Under PC-DOS 3.2 the environment seems to default to 13 paragraphs (so envsize.com, recently downloaded from this net, informs me). The environment on a PC running 3.1 seems to be 4 paragraphs. -- Charles Blair ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb The University of Chicago PMRCJDB@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet
wmam@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (tony mason) (12/02/86)
>>I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me >>the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! >>Melvin Chan > >Under PC-DOS 3.2 the environment seems to default to 13 paragraphs (so >envsize.com, recently downloaded from this net, informs me). The >environment on a PC running 3.1 seems to be 4 paragraphs. PC-DOS 3.1 has an (unpublished) switch (/e) to use with the COMSPEC setting in config.sys to tune the environment size. An easier solution is to find somebody with Microsoft C Ver 4.0 which also has a (very easy to use) utility to adjust this parameter. In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if other Microsoft products have that program (called setenv) with them. -- Tony Mason >>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Chicago uucp: ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!wmam, ...ihnp4!gargoyle!euler!tony mailnet: m1.spokane@UChicago.Mailnet bitnet: wmam%sphinx@UChicago.Bitnet ARPA: m1.spokane%UChicago.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.ARPA
tj@utcs.uucp (12/02/86)
One really nice feature (in fact, probably the only one I need) is the ability to increase the environment size in config.sys so that my monster path specification and all the environment variables fit! shell=c:\command.com /e:1024 /p is all you need in config.sys to do it! Oh, 3.2 is required for 3.5 inch floppies... Note that I understand that 3.2 is distributed on 3.5 and 5.25 inch floppies and they are different!!! The 5.25 inch version needs an externally loaded driver to handle 3.5 inch floppies!
osbook@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (osbook) (12/02/86)
Someone about asked the differences between DOS 3.1 and DOS 3.2.
Here they are:
In general, DOS 3.2 fixed bugs, supports the Token Ring Network
and supports the new 3.2 in diskette drives.
New Commands:
REPLACE
allows you to selectively change versions of DOS
and application programs or replace all occurrences
of a file on a disk
XCOPY
allows you to copy whole directories including lower level
subdirectories; faster than COPY plus important
new options
DRIVER.SYS
general diskette device driver; in particular
supports the 3.2 inch diskettes
Enhanced Commands:
ATTRIB
can set the archive bit
COMMAND
can set the size of the DOS environment
this can be *very* important for people who use
long path names; DOS 3.1 can do this but the
feature is *undocumented* and works slightly
different
DISKCOMP
supports 3.2 in diskettes
DISKCOPY
supports 3.2 in diskettes
FORMAT
will not let you accidentally format a hard disk
has two important safety features
*** important ***
SHELL
same as COMMAND above
SELECT
does more (Who cares?)
Harley Hahn
osbook@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
P.S. I am trying to reach "akk2" who was trying to rename the
COPY command. Please send me an ARPA address. I can't get through
to you.
By the way, I am trying to send "akk2" a detailed explanation of what DOS
does to check if a command is an internal command. If anyone else
is interested, I can post the explanation to the net.matt@inuxg.UUCP (Matt Verner) (12/02/86)
> I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me > the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! > > Melvin Chan According to 'Advanced MSDOS' by Ray Duncan (Microsoft Press 1986) on page 5, The difference between 3.1 and 3.2 is 'Enhanced support for new media types'. In other words it supposedly supports hard disks greater than 32Meg. Matt Verner UUCP: ...ihnp4!inuxc!matt AT&T Graphics Software Laboratory AT&T: (317) 352-6149 Indianapolis, IN "The whole point of this sentence is to clearly explain the point this sentence is making."
brown@nicmad.UUCP (12/02/86)
In article <855@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> pre1@sphinx.UUCP (Grant A. Prellwitz) writes: >In article <1157@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> melvinc@sim.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Melvin Chan) writes: >>I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me >>the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! > >The major differences that I have found are the following bugs: >DOS3.2 restore doesn't seem to work. Therefore the entire backup/restore > package isn't distributed with the system. I have been using PC-DOS 3.20 for quite awhile now, and Backup/Restore, using 5.25" 360K diskettes, works just fine. Never a problem. -- ihnp4------\ |------------------------| harvard-\ \ | terminus: | Mr. Video seismo!uwvax!nicmad!brown | The clearing house for | topaz-/ / | rec.arts.drwho | decvax------/ |------------------------| terminus-----/
jkg@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Jim Greenlee) (12/02/86)
In article <1986Dec1.234408.21398@utcs.uucp> tj@utcs.UUCP (tj) writes: >One really nice feature (in fact, probably the only one I need) is the ability >to increase the environment size in config.sys so that my monster path >specification and all the environment variables fit! >shell=c:\command.com /e:1024 /p >is all you need in config.sys to do it! You can also do this in DOS 3.1, although the syntax is a little different. The argument passed after the "/e:" is a two digit decimal number between 16 and 62. (I'm not sure about the lower bound, but 62 is definitely the max.). The argument represents the number of 16 byte "pages" you want to allocate for the environment space. I found that I had to put a space between "command.com" and the rest of the line for it to work right. The "/p" tells COMMAND.COM to stay resident after loading. This is an undocumented (well, maybe if I'd read the manual ... :-) feature of DOS that really ought not to be. Jim Greenlee -- The Shadow...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!jkg Jryy, abj lbh'ir tbar naq qbar vg! Whfg unq gb xrrc svqqyvat jvgu vg hagvy lbh oebxr vg, qvqa'g lbh?!
sanford@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (the WAR LORD) (12/02/86)
Another major change that I didn't see anyone mention is that DOS 3.2 has a new version of IBM BASIC. I'm not sure of all the changes in it, but I herd that it wasn't worth the extra bucks. You would also have to buy a new Basic Manual, since IBM doesn't give you one anymore.
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim Frost) (12/02/86)
In article <855@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> pre1@sphinx.UUCP (Grant A. Prellwitz) writes: >In article <1157@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> melvinc@sim.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Melvin Chan) writes: >>I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me >>the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2? Thanks! > >The major differences that I have found are the following bugs: >DOS3.2 restore doesn't seem to work. Therefore the entire backup/restore > package isn't distributed with the system. For general information DON'T use BACKUP/RESTORE ever. Not only does restore fail to work with v3.2, but the versions of backup/restore are incompatible between versions (at least between v2.11 and v3.1). To top this off, they are rediculously slow. One of my friends explained then v3.2 is supposed to fix a couple of bugs in the way DOS handles filesharing and other neat things. Unfortunately, they fixed only some simple things and made a couple of other things a bit buggy. He didn't elaborate on what was buggy, only that 3.2 was a little dangerous to use. Me, I'll stick with 3.1. -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker - UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs | BITNET: cscc71c@bostonu -------------------------------+---+------------------------------------ "Oh beer, oh beer." -- Me | [=(BEER) <- Bud the Beer (cheers!)
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim Frost) (12/02/86)
In article <1986Dec1.234408.21398@utcs.uucp> tj@utcs.UUCP (tj) writes: > >One really nice feature (in fact, probably the only one I need) is the ability >to increase the environment size in config.sys so that my monster path >specification and all the environment variables fit! >shell=c:\command.com /e:1024 /p >is all you need in config.sys to do it! > Note that DOS 3.1 gives this capability too, but I think you specify the size in paragraphs, not bytes. >Oh, 3.2 is required for 3.5 inch floppies... Note that I understand that >3.2 is distributed on 3.5 and 5.25 inch floppies and they are >different!!! The 5.25 inch version needs an externally loaded driver >to handle 3.5 inch floppies! 3.2 isn't required for 3.5 inch floppies. Several companies sell drivers and controllers for 3.5 inch floppies for any dos above 2.0 (Flagstaff Engineering, with whom I am unrelated, is one such manufacturer). However, 3.2 is by far the cheapest way to use them, with the possible exception of PD drivers that I am unaware of. -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker - UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs | BITNET: cscc71c@bostonu -------------------------------+---+------------------------------------ "Oh beer, oh beer." -- Me | [=(BEER) <- Bud the Beer (cheers!)
brimoe@hope.UUCP (Brian Bender) (12/04/86)
> > By the way, I am trying to send "akk2" a detailed explanation of what DOS > does to check if a command is an internal command. If anyone else > is interested, I can post the explanation to the net. Yeah I'm sure alot of people would like to hear about the way dos does its internal checking. Brian(moe).
ben@catnip.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (12/04/86)
In article <7438@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> sanford@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (the WAR LORD) writes: >Another major change that I didn't see anyone mention is that DOS 3.2 >has a new version of IBM BASIC. I'm not sure of all the changes in >it, but I herd that it wasn't worth the extra bucks. You would also >have to buy a new Basic Manual, since IBM doesn't give you one >anymore. It is if you own an EGA card. They have added support for all the video modes of the EGA, including the hi-res (640x350) 16 of 64 color mode. With DOS 3.1 BASIC, you are limited to the CGA modes. -- Ben Broder {ihnp4,decvax} !hjuxa!catnip!ben {houxm,topaz}/
amir@booboo.UUCP (12/08/86)
> > In article <7438@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> sanford@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (the WAR LORD) writes: > >Another major change that I didn't see anyone mention is that DOS 3.2 > >has a new version of IBM BASIC. I'm not sure of all the changes in > >it, but I herd that it wasn't worth the extra bucks. You would also > >have to buy a new Basic Manual, since IBM doesn't give you one > >anymore. > > It is if you own an EGA card. They have added support for all the video > modes of the EGA, including the hi-res (640x350) 16 of 64 color mode. With > DOS 3.1 BASIC, you are limited to the CGA modes. > Does anyone know if Quickbasic also has the same EGA support? While we are at it, does anyone have any routines in C/assembler that support the EGA graphics (have to be high-speed though). Thanks in advance. Amir H. Majidimehr Gould Inc, Computer Systems Division {sun,pur-ee,brl-bmd}!gould!amir