ALAN.MCADOO@OFFICE.WANG.COM (Alan McAdoo) (05/31/91)
Microsoft Holland have informed me that thay are now accepting orders for MS-DOS 5.0, which will be released World-Wide on 11th June. Here in Holland, I have ordered the MS-DOS v5.0 UPGRADE. ( I had to send a photocopy of the first page of my MS-DOS Manual). The price for the upgrade here is $120. I have actually ordered it from an update service - LogicSoft tel (31)20-614-6161). Microsoft tel (31)2503-13181. ******************************************************************** Stanadard Discaimer Applies. ********************************************************************
riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) (05/31/91)
In article <b6a4pw.hvy@wang.com> ALAN.MCADOO@OFFICE.WANG.COM (Alan McAdoo) writes: >Microsoft Holland have informed me that thay are now accepting orders >for MS-DOS 5.0, which will be released World-Wide on 11th June. > How will the operation of Windows 3.0 be affected by DOS 5.0, if at all? Carl Riehm.
gurganus@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (James P Gurganus) (06/02/91)
riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >In article <b6a4pw.hvy@wang.com> ALAN.MCADOO@OFFICE.WANG.COM (Alan McAdoo) writes: >>Microsoft Holland have informed me that thay are now accepting orders >>for MS-DOS 5.0, which will be released World-Wide on 11th June. >> >How will the operation of Windows 3.0 be affected by DOS 5.0, if at all? >Carl Riehm. I saw someone using a beta version of Ms Dos 5.0. They said you needed some extra file in your root directory to run Windows 3.0. Does anyone know what this file does or if its really needed?
Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts) (06/03/91)
DOS 5.0 has (of all things), a task manager similar to Windows. Also, the limited docs I have don't mention the filename necessary for Windows and DOS to function together. I will chat with MS and see what I can see, Renee Roberts
timur@seas.gwu.edu (The Time Traveler) (06/04/91)
In article <gurganus.675797385@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> gurganus@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (James P Gurganus) writes: >riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >I saw someone using a beta version of Ms Dos 5.0. They said you needed >some extra file in your root directory to run Windows 3.0. Does anyone >know what this file does or if its really needed? That is correct. The file is called something like WINA20.386. I don't know what it does, and I haven't tried deleting it either.
gettys@yacht.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys) (06/04/91)
The file for Windows V3 and DOS 5 to co-exist is called WINA20.386. It looks like it might have something to do with the 64k HMA from the error messages contained within. /s/ Bob p.s. - I can state that windows will not run without it!
schuster@panix.uucp (Michael Schuster) (06/04/91)
In article <42913@cup.portal.com> Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts) writes: >DOS 5.0 has (of all things), a task manager similar to Windows. Also, the >limited docs I have don't mention the filename necessary for Windows and >DOS to function together. I will chat with MS and see what I can see, > WINA20.386 It has something to do with A20 gating (to access "high" memory) in virtual 8086 mode on 386 machines. -- Mike Schuster | CIS: 70346,1745 NY Public Access UNIX: ...cmcl2!panix!schuster | MCI Mail, GENIE: The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | MSCHUSTER
dcrowley@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (David Crowley) (06/04/91)
In article <gurganus.675797385@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> gurganus@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (James P Gurganus) writes: >riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: > >>>for MS-DOS 5.0, which will be released World-Wide on 11th June. And not before time too :-( > >>How will the operation of Windows 3.0 be affected by DOS 5.0, if at all? Win3 works fine for me under Dos5 though there were a fee initial hiccups, cause I don't have enough memory to put all that I want up into himem like you can do with qemm. But no I'm hooning and get more memory for dos apps under windows. :-) > >some extra file in your root directory to run Windows 3.0. Does anyone >know what this file does or if its really needed? Yep, this is true. When you get all your N disks that come with Dos5 and then type setup to install it, it puts a file called WINA20.386 in to root dir on your boot disk (ie C:) and if this file does not exist windows will not run in 386enh mode. Ohh, yea and another thing. Is it possible to set up expanded memory, extended memory, put stuff up in himem and still be able to run win in standard mode? I couldn't get it to work. I can only run in 386enh mode which is fine, but I was wondering?-) David... -- -----------------=\|/= = = = = Don't blow up, it's more fun to implode ! = = = David Crowley --@-- Database Programmer, Macquarie University, Australia ----------------- /|\ email: dcrowley@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au At MacUni-Phone = 61 2 805-8792 Room = EsevenB 238. At home-Phone = 489-5384
tran@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Nhan Tran) (06/05/91)
What is new features in MS-DOS v5.0 ? Are they worth switching to? Nhan Tran
galenr@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Galen Raben) (06/05/91)
In comp.windows.ms, dcrowley@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (David Crowley) writes: > Ohh, yea and another thing. Is it possible to set up expanded > memory, extended memory, put stuff up in himem and still be able > to run win in standard mode? I couldn't get it to work. I can > only run in 386enh mode which is fine, but I was wondering?-) > David... >-----------------=\|/= = = = = Don't blow up, it's more fun to implode ! = = = > David Crowley --@-- Database Programmer, Macquarie University, Australia >----------------- /|\ email: dcrowley@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au >At MacUni-Phone = 61 2 805-8792 Room = EsevenB 238. At home-Phone = 489-5384 I've also run into the same problem with running in standard mode - seems to have something to do with the EMM386 driver supplied... If I don't load EMM386 Windows runs standard mode just fine (but then you can't take advantage of loading installable drivers in upper memory). Somebody know how to do this? (no I'm not complaining, its a great product!) Galen
jcohen@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (Josh Cohen [890918]) (06/06/91)
I have seen a machine here running DOS5.00, and windows.. Its is cool. Dos loads itself int o HI Memory.. normally, it takes up 13k! typing mem at the dos prompt, show 612k free!. it seems to work VERY well with windows.. more to follow Josh COhen jrc5@pl118c.cc.lehigh.edu
n65j@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (06/07/91)
In article <1300064@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>, galenr@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Galen Raben) writes: > In comp.windows.ms, dcrowley@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (David Crowley) writes: > >> Ohh, yea and another thing. Is it possible to set up expanded >> memory, extended memory, put stuff up in himem and still be able >> to run win in standard mode? I couldn't get it to work. I can >> only run in 386enh mode which is fine, but I was wondering?-) > >> David... >>-----------------=\|/= = = = = Don't blow up, it's more fun to implode ! = = = >> David Crowley --@-- Database Programmer, Macquarie University, Australia >>----------------- /|\ email: dcrowley@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au >>At MacUni-Phone = 61 2 805-8792 Room = EsevenB 238. At home-Phone = 489-5384 > > I've also run into the same problem with running in standard mode - seems to > have something to do with the EMM386 driver supplied... If I don't load EMM386 > Windows runs standard mode just fine (but then you can't take advantage of > loading installable drivers in upper memory). Somebody know how to do this? > (no I'm not complaining, its a great product!) > > Galen EMM386 is not designed to work with Standard mode. Try Quarterdeck's QEMM; version 5.11 or 5.12 works with Standard mode well, in my experience, providing some EMS memory and also replacing HIMEM.SYS. -- regards, Steve Pacenka, Cornell U.
bobsc@microsoft.UUCP (Bob SCHMIDT) (06/07/91)
(David Crowley) writes: %% (James P Gurganus) writes: %% >riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: %% >some extra file in your root directory to run Windows 3.0. Does anyone %% >know what this file does or if its really needed? %% Yep, this is true. When you get all your N disks that come with %% Dos5 and then type setup to install it, it puts a file called %% WINA20.386 in to root dir on your boot disk (ie C:) and if this %% file does not exist windows will not run in 386enh mode. %% Ohh, yea and another thing. Is it possible to set up expanded %% memory, extended memory, put stuff up in himem and still be able %% to run win in standard mode? I couldn't get it to work. I can %% only run in 386enh mode which is fine, but I was wondering?-) The file WINA20.386 is a Windows 3.0 virtual device driver, and arbitrates the A20 line used by HIMEM.SYS. This virtualization should be handled in the next version of Windows, but for now the file is required. While DOS installs put the file in your root, you don't have to leave it there. By adding the line switches = /w to your DOS 5 CONFIG.SYS, you can put WINA20.386 anywhere. Just be sure to add the line device=c:\dos\wina20.386 ; or wherever the correct path is to the [386Enh] section of SYSTEM.INI. As for the conflict between DOS 5 UMB support and Windows '286 mode... You're not hallucinating; the conflict is real. Windows detects that some other protected-mode software is running, and won't load. I can't say if/when this conflict will go away. -- -- Bob Schmidt bobsc@microsoft.UUCP -- -- Bellevue WA USA Windows SDK Support -- Syndey NSW Australia Developer Support (after 1 Oct)
timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) (06/11/91)
In article <72798@microsoft.UUCP> bobsc@microsoft.UUCP (Bob SCHMIDT) writes: >(David Crowley) writes: >%% Ohh, yea and another thing. Is it possible to set up expanded >%% memory, extended memory, put stuff up in himem and still be able >%% to run win in standard mode? I couldn't get it to work. I can >%% only run in 386enh mode which is fine, but I was wondering?-) > >As for the conflict between DOS 5 UMB support and Windows '286 mode... >You're not hallucinating; the conflict is real. Windows detects that >some other protected-mode software is running, and won't load. I can't >say if/when this conflict will go away. Bob, is this the official Microsoft position, or are you speaking on your own? Your last sentence shows extreme short-sightedness and a lack of understanding of the seriousness of this problem. Why was this incompatibility allowed to happen? This failure in DOS 5 nearly makes it unacceptable for Windows developers. Our drivers have to work in EACH of the Windows modes. Now, running DOS 5's EMM386, I can no longer test Standard mode. QEMM happily coexists with Windows in Real, Enhanced, AND Standard modes. If Quarterdeck can achieve 386 memory detente with your OS and your window manager, then surely Microsoft itself should be able to do at least as good a job! This is a SIGNIFICANT deficiency. I sincerely hope Microsoft is making more of an effort to isolate and correct this flaw than is indicated in your mail. -- timr@gssc.gss.com Tim N Roberts, CCP Graphic Software Systems Beaverton, OR This is a very long palindrome. .emordnilap gnol yrev a si sihT
conrad@tharr.UUCP (Conrad Longmore) (06/12/91)
Well, I have to say that the launch in the UK was a farce. There were only
400 or so seats available in the auditorium, and Microsoft invited 43,000
people. It didn't matter much if you'd been invited and confirmed that you
were going, because only a few hundred people were registered on the
Microsoft database! Worse it was hosted by "trendy" TV presenter Jonathan
Ross who's knowledge of computers is probably as good as my cat's! (Only
joking Mr Ross)
Now, where did I put the phone number for DR?
--
// Conrad Longmore / Uucp: ..!ukc!axion!tharr!conrad / All opinions //
// Academic SysAdmin / Janet: tharr!conrad @ uk.ac.ukc / stated are //
// Bedford College / Or try: conrad @ tharr.uucpi / belong to //
// Computer Centre / Linenoise research a speciality / someone else //
// ** T H A R R ** / Free access to Usenet in the UK / * 0234 841503 *//jsims@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (J. Robert Sims) (06/13/91)
In article <6669@gssc.UUCP> timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts) writes: >In article <72798@microsoft.UUCP> bobsc@microsoft.UUCP (Bob SCHMIDT) writes: >>(David Crowley) writes: >>%% Ohh, yea and another thing. Is it possible to set up expanded >>%% memory, extended memory, put stuff up in himem and still be able >>%% to run win in standard mode? I couldn't get it to work. I can >>%% only run in 386enh mode which is fine, but I was wondering?-) >> >>As for the conflict between DOS 5 UMB support and Windows '286 mode... >>You're not hallucinating; the conflict is real. Windows detects that >>some other protected-mode software is running, and won't load. I can't >>say if/when this conflict will go away. > >Bob, is this the official Microsoft position, or are you speaking on your own? >Your last sentence shows extreme short-sightedness and a lack of understanding >of the seriousness of this problem. > It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this was the official position. I called tech support because Word for Windows appeared to be grabbing more system resources than it should; I had two documents open, and couldn't print due to insufficient memory! (With _ample_ available RAM). The resources figure was quite low, but from what I could tell WfW was grabbing over 50% of system resources. Tech support told me that the resources had disappeared into a black hole; the solution was to restart Windows, because Windows does not properly release resources when applications are finished. When I asked about an update, I was told that "Microsoft doesn't consider this to be a bug," and that I should reboot my machine often to eliminate the problem. Microsoft said the same thing about a bug in Word for Dos 5.5's postscript driver. In certain fonts (Courier, I think), subscripts are totally misaligned horizontally. I was told that this fix was not on their future plan; their developers were working on a different project. Microsoft tech support is also unhelpful with any problem or question not documented in the manual, and does not return phone calls when they say they will. Microsoft's policy is to develop something until it's saleable, and then screw anybody with problems. If Microsoft developers would spend more time on the core of the software, and less on fancy hidden credit screens, the software might be better. Rob
bobsc@microsoft.UUCP (Bob SCHMIDT) (06/15/91)
I wrote: As for the conflict between DOS 5 UMB support and Windows '286 mode... You're not hallucinating; the conflict is real. Windows detects that some other protected-mode software is running, and won't load. I can't say if/when this conflict will go away. Tim Roberts responded: Bob, is this the official Microsoft position, or are you speaking on your own? Your last sentence shows extreme short-sightedness and a lack of understanding of the seriousness of this problem. Why was this incompatibility allowed to happen? This failure in DOS 5 nearly makes it unacceptable for Windows developers. Our drivers have to work in EACH of the Windows modes. Now, running DOS 5's EMM386, I can no longer test Standard mode. QEMM happily coexists with Windows in Real, Enhanced, AND Standard modes. If Quarterdeck can achieve 386 memory detente with your OS and your window manager, then surely Microsoft itself should be able to do at least as good a job! This is a SIGNIFICANT deficiency. I sincerely hope Microsoft is making more of an effort to isolate and correct this flaw than is indicated in your mail. My reply: I am speaking on my own. I should have stated such in my signature, and aplogize for the confusion. I have ammended my signoff to reflect this. I was not stating any official Microsoft position, but rather simply confirming someone else's observation. The "Microsoft" in my signature lets readers know who/where I am; it does *not* imply an endorsement of my words by MS. As an employee of Microsoft Product Support, I am quite limited in what I'm allowed to discuss in a non-confidential forum, such as this. Other parts of the company may enjoy more freedom; I don't. When I post something to UseNet, even in a "non-official" capacity, I have a sometimes ill-defined line I cannot cross. Trust me, I wish it were otherwise. I figure it's better to say something than nothing at all. In my former life, I was a Microsoft customer; I want to help you. Please know that I'm operating in "good faith" for both you all and MS. Now, concerning EMM386...I can honestly tell you that both Windows Development and DOS Development are looking at it. There is no word yet on a fix. I don't know why this was "allowed to happen". My conjecture is that Windows was not written with DOS 5 in mind, and that the DOS people felt the plus of UMB outweighed this minus. The file WINA20.386 falls into this same category, as a work-around for Windows not expecting DOS to mess with the A20 line. My educated guess is that we will fix this in the next release of Windows (along with obviating WINA20.386). Note that the conflict only arises when you use EMM386 for UMB support. You can turn off UMB, and the problem will go away. This will at least allow you to run in standard mode, although maybe not under the memory configuration you would like. -- -- NOTE: The above is mine alone; I do NOT speak for Microsoft. -- -- Bob Schmidt bobsc@microsoft.UUCP -- -- Bellevue WA USA Windows SDK Support -- Sydney NSW AUS Developer Support (after 1 Oct)
antonio@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun13.161907.25853@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> jsims@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (J. Robert Sims) writes: >It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this was the official position. I >called tech support because Word for Windows appeared to be grabbing >more system resources than it should; I had two documents open, and >couldn't print due to insufficient memory! (With _ample_ available I have seen this very same symptom. I have often had two documents open (sometimes just one page memos), and been unable to switch documents or print the second document after printing the first. W4W interacts with Windows to produce some kind of memory management confusion. In one case, i was unable to switch to a 2nd document, even tho the program manager said i had 1800k mem and 62% of system resources available. It's pretty obvious that W4W gets Windows confused. >Tech support told me >that the resources had disappeared into a black hole; the solution was >to restart Windows, because Windows does not properly release >resources when applications are finished. I think it's more complicated than that. I've seen W4W claim there wasn't enough memory, even when there was, in cases where NO APP HAD EVER TERMINATED in the present windows session! >When I asked about an >update, I was told that "Microsoft doesn't consider this to be a bug," >and that I should reboot my machine often to eliminate the problem. It's pretty obvious that there are memory management bugs in W4W. Microsoft has the habit of putting some pretty junior people on the tech support phone lines. My theory is that that's how they train new people.
valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) (06/16/91)
Note: This post has absolutely nothing to do with Windows, DOS 5.0, or the IBM PC, and no doubt belongs in whatever the administration conference (group) is for Usenet, but since I a) don't know what group that would be and b) don't follow any such group, I am posting it here. Be advised and assured that I know doing so is/was wrong... Now, how's that for a caveat??? But wait, it gets better... bobsc@microsoft.UUCP (Bob SCHMIDT) writes: > I am speaking on my own. I should have stated such in my signature, > and aplogize for the confusion. I have ammended my signoff to reflect > this. I was not stating any official Microsoft position, but rather > simply confirming someone else's observation. The "Microsoft" > in my signature lets readers know who/where I am; it does *not* > imply an endorsement of my words by MS. > As an employee of Microsoft Product Support, I am quite limited > in what I'm allowed to discuss in a non-confidential forum, such > as this. Other parts of the company may enjoy more freedom; I don't. > When I post something to UseNet, even in a "non-official" capacity, > I have a sometimes ill-defined line I cannot cross. Trust me, I > wish it were otherwise. I've been reading these disclaimers for quite a while now, and after a while they do get tiresome. Does anyone really think they are necessary? (I like the ones by people who are basically one man shops and they can quite truthfully say that what they right does represent the views of their organization/boss/whatever...) I suggest two possible alternatives (to having to continually wade through this drivel [nothing personal at all toward you, Bob. I've been thinking this for quite a while, and arbitrarily chose this occasion to post; probably something about the current state of my body chemistry...]) a) People cease putting their corporate affiliations in their signatures. Then readers will never get the impression that authors are speaking for their companies. This notion is consistent with the general fact that Usenet is a adamantly non-commercial entity, and people are *never* speaking for their companies here (except for the degenerate case mentioned above) (Contrast this with Compu$erve or GEnie, which are commercial entities, with company sponsored groups, etc) b) Failing this, can't we just change the default assumption to be that whatever is posted here does not represent anyone else's views or official positions (unless explicitly stated otherwise) So? Whaddya think? Food for thought... -- (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)
bobsc@microsoft.UUCP (Bob SCHMIDT) (06/16/91)
In article <72917@microsoft.UUCP> I wrote:
[concerning EMM386 and WIN /2 conflict]
%% My educated guess is that we will fix this in the next release of
%% Windows (along with obviating WINA20.386). Note that the conflict
%% only arises when you use EMM386 for UMB support. You can turn
%% off UMB, and the problem will go away. This will at least allow
%% you to run in standard mode, although maybe not under the memory
%% configuration you would like.
I want to clarify this a bit. While the UMB support does cause this
conflict, so will EMS. That is, if EMM386 has actually allocated and used
EMS on behalf of some application, Windows will not run in standard mode.
For example, add the lines
device=c:\dos\emm386.exe on
device=c:\dos\ramdrive.sys /a
to CONFIG.SYS and reboot. This creates a RAM-drive in expanded memory.
Now WIN /S (or WIN /2) will generate the familiar "can't run" message.
Also, the question was raised "why does QEMM work?". It appears
that QEMM works by patching the Windows DOS extender (DOSX.EXE).
If true, this is extremely version-bound; I've heard that the
QEMM version that works in Windows 3.00 breaks in Windows 3.00A.
All this is from unverified sources within MS; you'd have to
contact Quarterdeck for the real scoop.
--
-- NOTE: The above is mine alone; I do NOT speak for Microsoft.
--
-- Bob Schmidt bobsc@microsoft.UUCP
--
-- Bellevue WA USA Windows SDK Support
-- Sydney NSW AUS Developer Support (after 1 Oct)mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun15.180650.19010@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes: >I've been reading these disclaimers for quite a while now, and after a >while they do get tiresome. > >I suggest two possible alternatives > > a) People cease putting their corporate affiliations in their > signatures. Then readers will never get the impression that > authors are speaking for their companies. This notion is > consistent with the general fact that Usenet is a adamantly > non-commercial entity, and people are *never* speaking for their > companies here (except for the degenerate case mentioned above) > (Contrast this with Compu$erve or GEnie, which are commercial > entities, with company sponsored groups, etc) Posting one's corporate affiliation is necessary so that we can figure out who may have ulterior motives in pushing a product or suggesting a commercial solution to someone's problems. As for Usenet being "adamantly non-commercial", nonsense. Lots of companies post official (or semi-official, or semi-unofficial, or ...) information to Usenet. That is generally accepted as a useful service to the community, as long as this isn't abused by turning it into a pile of advertising. Since this is the case, it is necessary for employees of companies to tell us whether they're speaking officially, guessing or just plain sneaking out corporate secrets for us. I agree though that some people go way overboard. I always think it's a little ridiculous when I see a disclaimer by someone affiliated to a University. Sincerely, Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca