frank@odetics.com (Frank Merrow) (10/15/90)
Hi - I have a quick question, I have been running under the assumption that DOS 4.x is NOT the way to go. I guess someplace I heard that it is MUCH bigger than 3.3 and that the "graphical interface" (is this COMMAND.COM?) is not that good. In scanning some other News I happened to notice that 4.x supports disc partitions bigger than 32K. IF THIS IS TRUE it is a VERY big plus. Is the shell really all that bad. Does is really support partition bigger than 32K? Do you have to use this "graphical interface" or is there something more like COMMAND.COM included also? How does Windows 3.0 and DOS 4.x get along. How about utilities like Mace and Fastback - do they have problems with the large partitions? I assume that even though the Hard Disc is a large partition that the standard floppies still work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up that bad). Frank frank@odetics.com
stever@Octopus.COM (Steve Resnick ) (10/15/90)
In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes: >Hi - I have a quick question, > >I have been running under the assumption that DOS 4.x is NOT the way to >go. I guess someplace I heard that it is MUCH bigger than 3.3 and that >the "graphical interface" (is this COMMAND.COM?) is not that good. In >scanning some other News I happened to notice that 4.x supports disc >partitions bigger than 32K. IF THIS IS TRUE it is a VERY big plus. Is >the shell really all that bad. Does is really support partition bigger >than 32K? Do you have to use this "graphical interface" or is there >something more like COMMAND.COM included also? How does Windows 3.0 and >DOS 4.x get along. How about utilities like Mace and Fastback - do they >have problems with the large partitions? I assume that even though >the Hard Disc is a large partition that the standard floppies still >work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up that bad). > MS DOS 4.x is really not that bad. Yes, it is bigger than 3.3, but only when you run on a machine w/o EMS memory. (I run a 386 with QEMM) When you have EMS memory (the kludge that it is) you end up with more available REAL memory for your programs. It also deals with large FAT partitions. It is rumored that DOS 5.00 will support OS/2 style HPFS partitions, but that's off the subject. The graphical "shell" is an add-on and not a replacement for command.com. I don't know about Mace and Fastback, but Norton utilities run fine. Personally, I have run into no problems running DOS 4 in the last 6 months. My $.02 .... Steve -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- steve.resnick@f105.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG - or - apple!camphq!105!steve.resnick Flames, grammar errors, spelling errrors >/dev/nul The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 IFNA 1:143/105.0
mikey@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Michael GALLOP) (10/16/90)
**** * frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) did cause to be know: * >Hi - I have a quick question, > >I have been running under the assumption that DOS 4.x is NOT the way to >go. I guess someplace I heard that it is MUCH bigger than 3.3 and that >the "graphical interface" (is this COMMAND.COM?) is not that good. In The "graphical interface" is actually a shell program completely different from COMMAND.COM It is called in the autoexec.bat file and can be easily removed. Depends on what you mean by much bigger. (If memory serves me correctly...) DOS 3.3 was ~700K in size. While 4.01 is somewhat larger, on the order of 1.5 MB >scanning some other News I happened to notice that 4.x supports disc >partitions bigger than 32K. IF THIS IS TRUE it is a VERY big plus. Is >the shell really all that bad. Does is really support partition bigger >than 32K? Dos 1.0a supports discs bigger than 32K. 32K = 32768 bytes The question is does DOS 4.0x support discs bigger than 32 MB as the primary disc? The answer is an unequivocal yes. I run a 386 with a Large hard drive. Using Dos 4.01 the primary partition is 135 MB. >Do you have to use this "graphical interface" or is there >something more like COMMAND.COM included also? No, There is a command.com, see above. >How does Windows 3.0 and >DOS 4.x get along. Great, almost like the same company made them :-) This isn't to say there aren't problems-- Microsoft ought to have shipped a Windows aware chkdsk with windows. I know I made that mistake _Once_ (!) >How about utilities like Mace and Fastback - do they >have problems with the large partitions? I assume that even though >the Hard Disc is a large partition that the standard floppies still >work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up that bad). Okay. MACE-1990 releases work. Fastback Plus 2.01 + works and Norton 4.5 + All have no problem. Norton even ressurrected the hard drive after a fault in the carbon based hardware (me! :-)) So DOS 4.01 isn't the best. There are bugs. I personally wouldn't run it on anything with only 640k and a small (less than 40) Hard drive. But get up to a 386 with 4-8 MB cache, 300 MB drive and other toys and I think it's worth the extra 30K of conventional RAM taken....IMHO :-) -- | mikey@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca | Mike Gallop | | "Stop that! It's silly... Now let's have some REAL military discipline!" |
rusbara2@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes: >I have been running under the assumption that DOS 4.x is NOT the way to >go. I guess someplace I heard that it is MUCH bigger than 3.3 and that >the "graphical interface" (is this COMMAND.COM?) is not that good. In >scanning some other News I happened to notice that 4.x supports disc >partitions bigger than 32K. Normally I'd assume this was a typo, but since it appeared several other times in the text I deleted and the poster also seemed worried about floppies possibly being too big I think there's a little misunderstanding here. MS-DOS 3.3 supports partitions up to 32 MEGATBYTES. Are bigger partitions really a "big plus?" For the average user, I'd actually say no. It seems people actually keep things better organized when they have to divide it between different logical drives. If they end up having, say drives C: thru F: they'll group certain things on certain drives. If it's all one drive it often just becomes a big mess. Also, you *can* use drivers larger than 32 M with no problem. You just have to partition it into smaller logical drives and DOS treats it as several drives. Sorry if this seems obvious and trivial... Bob Rusbasan bob@en.ecn.purdue.edu
srw@cci632.UUCP (Steve Windsor) (10/16/90)
Some thoughts on DOS 4.01 (Note, NOT DOS 4.00!): Norton Utilities 4.5+ works with large partitions just fine. Fastback Plus v2.01 - v2.10 work fine also. Just leave out the DOS shell (Windows 3.0 does a much better job of it) Yes, the command shell takes up more space, but not that much more...and if you need that much memory, you should be exploring other options anyway. Stephen Windsor srw@cci632.UUCP
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (10/17/90)
In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes: >Does it really support partitions bigger than 32K? Yes, it really does. DOS 4.x uses a 16-bit FAT, so it can support very large disks indeed. >Is the shell really all that bad. I can't stand it. >Do you have to use this "graphical interface" or is there >something more like COMMAND.COM included also? The shell is optional. You can just use COMMAND.COM and delete the shell. I did. >How does Windows 3.0 and DOS 4.x get along. How about utilities like Mace >and Fastback - do they have problems with the large partitions? When 16-bit FATs first came out, there were many problems with programs like Mace, Norton, and Fastback. But current versions of such programs support 16-bit FATs. Windows 3.0 and DOS 4.x work fine together. >I assume that even though the Hard Disc is a large partition that the >standard floppies still work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up >that bad). The format of floppy disks is unchanged. DOS 4.x takes up more memory than 3.x, but unless you use many TSRs or have some other need for as much conventional memory as possible, this will not matter much. On a large hard disk, I would much rather use 4.x than 3.x since I cannot stand having a bunch of 32MB partitions. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (10/18/90)
In article <58280@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >DOS 4.x uses a 16-bit FAT, so it can support very large disks indeed. Oops! Back to school with me. DOS 3.x had a 16-bit FAT, and still could only have 32MB partitions. The DOS internal "block number" was limited to 16 bits in DOS 3.x and was the source of the 32MB limit (64k of sectors times 0.5k per sector = 32MB). In DOS 4.x, that number is increased to 32 bits, allowing DOS to count up to four billion sectors (an impractically large number). Sorry about that, folks. I bet the DOS developers are laughing at me now. Anyway, if you are interested in the gory details of DOS, read the "Disk Companion" chapter in the Norton Utilities 5.0 "Disk Explorer" manual. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
lord@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Lord) (10/18/90)
In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes:
<I have been running under the assumption that DOS 4.x is NOT the way to
<go. I guess someplace I heard that it is MUCH bigger than 3.3 and that
<the "graphical interface" (is this COMMAND.COM?) is not that good. In
Yes, it can be much bigger depending on what options you specify when
you install it. I'd recomend using QEMM which will move parts of it to
high memory. The "graphical interface" is a separate program that seems
totally pointless to me.
<scanning some other News I happened to notice that 4.x supports disc
<partitions bigger than 32K. IF THIS IS TRUE it is a VERY big plus. Is
Yes, that's why I use it.
<the shell really all that bad. Does is really support partition bigger
<than 32K? Do you have to use this "graphical interface" or is there
<something more like COMMAND.COM included also? How does Windows 3.0 and
<DOS 4.x get along. How about utilities like Mace and Fastback - do they
Windows 3.0 runs fine. Fastback runs fine although I've heard that it
won't run if you install DOS in "minimal" mode (which uses less memory).
I haven't tried Mace. Oh and DESQview 2.3 works well.
<have problems with the large partitions? I assume that even though
<the Hard Disc is a large partition that the standard floppies still
<work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up that bad).
I'd say that if you have a big system (> 1 meg and a big disk) then
4.01 is the way to go.
Oh, one problem, in 3.3 I could fool Solitaire Royal in to thinking
that the master floppy was in drive a: (It's one of THOSE anti-copying
schemes). In 4.01 I can't fool it anymore. I have to actually drag out
the floppy to play the game. Needless to say, I don't play it much
anymore.unhd (Jonathan W Miner) (10/22/90)
I have run with DOS 4.01 for almost a year, and have had no problems. My system includes 1M RAM, 1.2M floppy and a 40M (unpartitioned) Hard Drive. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Miner | I don't speak for UNH, and UNH does not jwm775@unhd.unh.edu | speak for me! (603)868-3416 | Rather be downhill skiing... or hacking...
jdg@neptune.sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) (10/24/90)
One thing I have not seen mentioned is Compaq's DOS 3.31. I use it and it also allows partitions > 32meg. I mention this only because it has the smaller kernel of DOS 3.x with the one real advantage of DOS 4.x, larger partitions. With a "clean" configuration I get a TPA of 582K. -- Jeff Gortatowsky-Eastman Kodak Company | UUCP : ..uunet!sisd!jdg Systems Integration & Software Development | Voice : (716)-726-0084 (EST/EDT) ------------------------------------------- USMail: Rochester NY 14653-5810 Kodak makes film not comments. Therefore these comments are mine not Kodak's.
ergo@netcom.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) (10/26/90)
In <58280@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes: >>I assume that even though the Hard Disc is a large partition that the >>standard floppies still work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up >>that bad). >The format of floppy disks is unchanged. That may well be, but I've had some trouble reading disks on 3.2 that were formatted under 4.01. It *might* be a hardware problem, but I have to wonder what 3.2 makes of a 4.01 disk serial number. -- ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA