jc58+@andrew.cmu.edu (Johnny J. Chin) (01/23/91)
I've been hearing that DOS 5.0 is coming out soon. Does anyone know when?
And what features does it (or will it) give us? Can it be used by the older
IBM PCs and ATs, or is it just for PS/2 (and/or EISA) computers?
The only thing that I've heard is that many of the DOS internal commands are
now external executables. Also, that the DOS can manage more than 640kb.
Is this true or was someone pulling my leg?
Thanks.
__________ Carnegie Mellon University ___
/ \ / / /_/ / /\/
_/ / / / "Happy Computing ..." __/. /__ / / / / /
/ / / -- Computer Dr.
/ / Internet: Johnny.J.Chin@andrew.cmu.edu
/ ------- / 4730 Centre Ave. #412 BITnet: jc58@andrew
\__________/ Pittsburgh, PA 15213 UUCP: ...!uunet!andrew.cmu.edu!jc58jc7o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joo C. Chung) (01/24/91)
From what I've heard, Dos 5.0 will be able to convert extended memory into high memory using Upper Memory Blocks (UMBs). This will allow you to load drivers and other dos files into High Memory. Dos 5.0 also uses a considerably less amount of memory from the base 640k. The Himem.sys in D0s 5.0 will convert all the extended memory to expanded memory. This himem.sys is the same version as the one that comes with Windows 3.0. Dos 5.0 also comes with a revised Dosshell. Not necessarily better than the Dosshell that comnes with Dos 4.0. But the File Manager in the Dosshell in Dos 5.0, I think, is better than the file manager in Dos 4.0. A friend of mine mentioned that he liked Dos 3.3 better than Dos 4.0 because it took up less memory. Well, Dos 5.0 will probably give you the power of Dos 4.0 without sacrificing the small size of Dos 3.3. Brought to you by, Joo Chung.
c37189h@saha.hut.fi (Harri "Haba" Suomalainen) (01/24/91)
In article <obbNx7m00VY64C4l8V@andrew.cmu.edu> jc58+@andrew.cmu.edu (Johnny J. Chin) writes: >The only thing that I've heard is that many of the DOS internal commands are >now external executables. Not true at all. > Also, that the DOS can manage more than 640kb. >Is this true or was someone pulling my leg? DOS 5.0 can swap command.com to extended/expanded memory. Also programs can be loaded to upper memory block (ie. to segment at 1M..1M+64k) like with qemm's loadhi. Anyway, swapping command.com and loading devices and programs to upper memory reduce memory consuption a lot. They have made the DOS smaller as well. Something like 600..625kb free is quite reasonable, not a dream any more! -hs -- Harri Suomalainen c37189h@saha.hut.fi haba@otax.tky.hut.fi
hk0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harry Karatassos) (01/24/91)
DOS 5.0 is definitely smaller. The versions I've used are quite nice - even if a little buggy (it was a beta test though...). Very nice memory management features also help make it the DOS for people (like me) who used to use DOS 3.3. I would say that there shouldn't be a big rush to convert until all the bugs are worked out. Maybe until DOS 5.1??? Harry Karatassos hk0x@andrew.cmu.edu Carnegie Mellon University "Stop the world and let off all the fools" (and give them clues)
kwgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Karol W Gieszczykiewicz) (01/25/91)
Greetings. I'm shopping for a 386 at the moment. How long do I have to wait for this Dos 5.0. I have been told that 4.01 "sucks beans" and I should stick to 3.3. So, what's the story? Take care. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If reply bounces, try "kwgst@pittvms"... no? try "fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu" Did you hear? Some Poles burned the Russian flag near the Soviet embassy, in Poland. :-) :-) "Nothing is impossible if you don't have to do it yourself."
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (01/25/91)
In article <83334@unix.cis.pitt.edu> kwgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Filip Gieszczykiewicz) writes: > > Greetings. I'm shopping for a 386 at the moment. How long > do I have to wait for this Dos 5.0. I have been told that > 4.01 "sucks beans" and I should stick to 3.3. > > So, what's the story? > > Take care. Well, to sum up the DOS saga as I know it, here goes.... Until the release of DOS 4.00 in 1989(?) the current standard, and a happy one at that, had been DOS 3.31. However, DOS 4.00 addressed certain problems that had been quite obvious with DOS 3.31, mostly that of a lack of an installation program, lack of a friendly "DOS Shell", and the inability to support hard drive partitions greater than 32MB. Well, what really happened was this: IBM PC-DOS 4.00 was released and was found to be excessively buggy. Many programs, including Norton Utilities, would just not work with DOS 4.00. Also, DOS 4.00 consumed about 15K (not exactly sure) more of ye olde valuable memory under 640K. This was not making many people happy. As a matter of fact, I have heard that in 1990 DOS 3.31 was STILL outselling DOS 4.01. Anyway....DOS 4.00 was soon upgraded by Microsoft to DOS 4.01 in an attempt to kill the bugs. This was only partially effective. So, in a piece by piece fashion: DOS Shell: Most people who have used the DOS 4.01 shell REALLY disklike it and just get something like XTree or PCTools or Norton Commander. IT is highly unintuitive and difficult to use. Especially when you want to just type COPY C:\DOS\*.TXT \UTIL\DOC and have to use that annoying shell. Installation: The install program was not only difficult to use, it prevented "old-timers" from just easily booting a disk, doing a FORMAT C:/S, and COPY A:*.* C:\DOS to get DOS on a new hard drive...instead of the old two disks with DOS 3.31, you have SELECT, INSTALL, OPERATING DISKS 1-3, DOSSHELL, and I believe one more. Also, the install program puts thinks like FCBS and FASTOPEN which most people don't use. As a matter of fact, FASTOPEN is downright dangerous when used with something like PC TOOLS compress or Norton Speed Disk, since the file pointers aren't updated when the files are moved. Big Hard Drive Partitions: Most people LIKED partitions at the times, since it was an easier way to keep track of information. However, 32MB has become a severe limitation. Most of us just used ONTRACK Disk Manager to get around the 32MB limit. The problem with the DOS 4.01 was that you had severe incompatibilities with certain programs (i.e. SpinRite, Optune, Norton Utils, Mace Utils, et. al.) that couldn't cope with the new FAT and partition structure. Luckily, most of the problems disappeared as new versions of software were released. Memory Overhead: The added memory of DOS 4.01 prevented many programs from even working, including Ventura Publisher and a couple of games. This was not good, with the RAM cram we have to suffer through right now anyway. To sum: DOS 4.01 does, in fact, "suck beans". I personal recommendation is to use COMPAQ DOS 3.31, which supports hard drive partitions greater than 32MB and is quite efficient. As for DOS 5.0, well, it is supposed to include many utilities by Central Point Software, including UnErase, UnFormat, etc. Also, it is supposed to load TSRs, drivers, etc,. into high memory, allow rudimentary task switching, have command line editing and history, and basically do everything that DOS 4.01 was SUPPOSED to do. It has been undergoing heavy beta testing so that a fiasco like what happened last time doesn't happen again. Hope this helps, Brian
levericw@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Walden Leverich) (01/26/91)
[stuff deleted]
Brian> DOS 4.01. Anyway....DOS 4.00 was soon upgraded by Microsoft to DOS 4.01
Brian> in an attempt to kill the bugs. This was only partially effective. So,
Brian> in a piece by piece fashion:
Just for reference. IBM release PC-DOS ver 4.00 and it was full of
bugs. MicroSoft then released MS-DOS ver 4.00 in which many of the
bugs were fixed (notice the same version numbers.) IBM then released
PC-DOS ver 4.01 in which the bugs were also fixed. I do not know if
MS-DOS and PC-DOS version numbers are still different.
[more stuff killed]
Brian> Memory Overhead: The added memory of DOS 4.01 prevented many programs
Brian> from even working, including Ventura Publisher and a couple of games.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have gotten VP to work on many systems (286s) running PC-DOS
ver 4.01
[and even more stuff killed]
Brian> everything that DOS 4.01 was SUPPOSED to do. It has been undergoing
Brian> heavy beta testing so that a fiasco like what happened last time doesn't
Brian> happen again.
Does anyone have a release date (even month or year) for DOS 5.0?
-Walden
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walden H. Leverich III | Inet: levericw@clutx.clarkson.edu
ECE Dept. | CServ: 73237,2212 <- checked weekly
Clarkson University | SnailMail: Software Solutions
| PO Box 763
| Potsdam, NY 13676-0763
#include <std_disclamer_concerning_what_I_say>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------schwalbe@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Jim Schwalbe) (01/26/91)
In article <26492@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: > >Until the release of DOS 4.00 in 1989(?) the current standard, and a happy >one at that, had been DOS 3.31. However, DOS 4.00 addressed certain >problems that had been quite obvious with DOS 3.31, mostly that of a >lack of an installation program, lack of a friendly "DOS Shell", and >the inability to support hard drive partitions greater than 32MB. Well, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think you mean DOS 3.30 here. DOS 3.31 (e.g. COMPAQ) *does* support partitions greater than 32 MB. .---------------------------------------------------------------------------. : Jim Schwalbe .----------------. "Half of what I say is : : Hardware Research Group .--+-------------. | meaningless; but I say it : : Encore Computer Corp. | | E N C O R E | | so that the other half may : : Mail: | `-------------+--' reach you." : : schwalbe@encore.com `----------------' - Kahil Gibran : `---------------------------------------------------------------------------'
hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) (01/26/91)
In article <LEVERICW.91Jan25102015@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu> levericw@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Walden Leverich) writes: > >Brian> DOS 4.01. Anyway....DOS 4.00 was soon upgraded by Microsoft to DOS 4.01 >Brian> in an attempt to kill the bugs. This was only partially effective. So, >Brian> in a piece by piece fashion: >Just for reference. IBM release PC-DOS ver 4.00 and it was full of >bugs. MicroSoft then released MS-DOS ver 4.00 in which many of the >bugs were fixed (notice the same version numbers.) IBM then released >PC-DOS ver 4.01 in which the bugs were also fixed. I do not know if >MS-DOS and PC-DOS version numbers are still different. Again, for reference: IBM told me that saying DOS Version 4.01 was an error. They say that it is still DOS 4.00, with the CSDs applied. (Corrective Services Disks). It's apparently the public which use the number 4.01 and 4.02 to indicate that they have applied the CSDs. (that's what ONE person from IBM has said) Also, it might be worth noting that there have been (at least) two CSDs for DOS 4.00. I have applied both, and the ver command still responds with DOS 4.00. hh -- Harry Haas GTRI/RIDL/DB "What makes it DO that!?" - Bones Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!hh2 Internet: hh2@prism.gatech.edu hhaas@{gtri01|rmadsun}.gatech.edu
raster@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jerry D Bain) (01/26/91)
levericw@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Walden Leverich) writes: >Does anyone have a release date (even month or year) for DOS 5.0? From what they tell us Beta Testers, MS-DOS v5.0 is scheduled (for the time being) for release in late first quarter/early second quarter (march/april) of 1991. Given the quality of the present Beta product, I suspect we will make this goal without problem.
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (01/26/91)
The final beta of 5.0 was shipped last week... they (microsoft) are shooting for a March release date. Also the "util" extras, like unformat, unerase, and so forth may be taken out as per requests from Central Point, Norton, etc, etc. They feel that some of the functions of 5.0 make their utility programs useless. Time will tell! -- Parik Rao, University of California Santa Barbara 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) (01/26/91)
In response to comments made by c37189h@saha.hut.fi: DOS 5.0 is basically everything that DOS4.01 was supposed to be. I do not have it yet, but on a friends machine, the free memory available was 632k!!! On top of all the updated utilities, and fixed bugs, the new DOSSHELL includes a TASK switcher. It cannot yet multitask, but it still is quite an improvement over the useless old shell. Couple that with QEMM386 on a nice 386 system, and you are talking memory city.!!! ./*- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ storm@cs.mcgill.ca Darkstorm aka Marc Wandschneider
storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) (01/26/91)
In response to levericw@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu: DOS 5.0 is shipping now. The Beta testing was quite extensive, and has now been completed. You can expect to see it in stores PROBABLY within the next month. It will be more than the ideal upgrade for anyone with a 386 with lots of memory and a big hard drive.... ./*- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ storm@cs.mcgill.ca Darkstorm aka Marc Wandschneider
fred@cdin-1.UUCP (Fred Rump) (01/26/91)
kwgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Karol W Gieszczykiewicz) writes: > Greetings. I'm shopping for a 386 at the moment. How long > do I have to wait for this Dos 5.0. I have been told that > 4.01 "sucks beans" and I should stick to 3.3. In this thread was a post from: chin, chung, gieszczykiewicz, kartassos and suomalainen. Aren't there any real people left using DOS? :) People like Brown and Smith? Anyway, folks all the niceties you're looking for in MS DOS 5.0 as vaporware are available now in DR DOS 5.0. It's real nice and seems to work everything I've tried on it. Also, take a look at the current copy of PC Magazine for a nice review of the product and discussion about this thread. Fred -- Fred Rump | Home of Brother John Software CompuData, Inc. | SCO Advanced Product Center 10501 Drummond Rd. | Bang: {uunet dsinc}!cdin-1!fred (800-223-DATA) Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: fred@COMPU.COM (215-824-3000)
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (01/26/91)
In article <LEVERICW.91Jan25102015@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu> levericw@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Walden Leverich) writes: >Just for reference. IBM release PC-DOS ver 4.00 and it was full of >bugs. MicroSoft then released MS-DOS ver 4.00 in which many of the >bugs were fixed (notice the same version numbers.) IBM then released >PC-DOS ver 4.01 in which the bugs were also fixed. I do not know if >MS-DOS and PC-DOS version numbers are still different. Well, all the copies of MS-DOS I have at work are labeled Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01 so I believe that the version numbers are now coinciding. >Brian> Memory Overhead: The added memory of DOS 4.01 prevented many programs >Brian> from even working, including Ventura Publisher and a couple of games. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I have gotten VP to work on many systems (286s) running PC-DOS >ver 4.01 My mistake, I suppose. When I worked at a law school installing their DTP systems we installed DOS 4.01 and VP 2.0 and it didn't work. Period. We did finally get it to work by booting off of a clean 4.01 system diskette with NOTHING in config.sys or autoexec.bat >Does anyone have a release date (even month or year) for DOS 5.0? From what PC WEEK and INFOWORLD have been stating, originally DOS 5.0 was scheduled for release in 1st quarter 1991 (i.e. right now). However, MS has stated not to expect earlier than the 2nd quarter. It seems from all the beta testers that it is real solid though. Another note: I heard that Windows 3.1 (May 22 tentative release date) will REQUIRE DOS 5.0 and that DOS upgrades will be allowed. Brian
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (01/26/91)
In article <8499@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: > > The final beta of 5.0 was shipped last week... >they (microsoft) are shooting for a March release >date. Also the "util" extras, like unformat, >unerase, and so forth may be taken out as per >requests from Central Point, Norton, etc, etc. They >feel that some of the functions of 5.0 make their >utility programs useless. > Also, the latest release of the beta of DOS 5.0 is supposedly the "final" release....no more suggestions, bug reports only please. The utility that was NOT included was a DeskLink like product that Traveling Software, the makers of DeskLink and LapLink, pleaded with Bill Gates not to include since that would kill the company instantaneously. Central Point Software has been RESPONSIBLE for writing the utility packages and thus I doubt that they will be complaining to heavily about its inclusion. Brian
roger@wrq.com (Roger Fulton) (01/26/91)
In article <26492@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >To sum: DOS 4.01 does, in fact, "suck beans". I personal recommendation >is to use COMPAQ DOS 3.31, which supports hard drive partitions greater ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >than 32MB and is quite efficient. That gets my vote too. Roger Fulton roger@wrq.com .
raster@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jerry D Bain) (01/26/91)
storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) writes: >DOS 5.0 is shipping now. The Beta testing was quite extensive, and has >now been completed. You can expect to see it in stores PROBABLY within the >next month. Where did you get this information? I am a Beta Tester for *MS*-DOS v5.0. I can assure you the product is not in production as yet. It is still in final phase testing. Are you speaking of DR-DOS (which has been in production for quite while now)?
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (01/27/91)
In article <2690@cdin-1.UUCP> fred@cdin-1.UUCP (Fred Rump) writes: >kwgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Karol W Gieszczykiewicz) writes: >> Greetings. I'm shopping for a 386 at the moment. How long >> do I have to wait for this Dos 5.0. I have been told that >> 4.01 "sucks beans" and I should stick to 3.3. > >In this thread was a post from: chin, chung, gieszczykiewicz, kartassos and >suomalainen. > >Aren't there any real people left using DOS? :) People like Brown and Smith? (squeaky voice hesitantly speaks up...) ah, yes...I am using...uh...DOS...it's only version 2.10 on my... uh...IBM 4.77MHz XT...uh...and my name is smith...is that ok? S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (01/27/91)
In article <2690@cdin-1.UUCP> fred@cdin-1.UUCP (Fred Rump) writes: >Anyway, folks all the niceties you're looking for in MS DOS 5.0 as vaporware >are available now in DR DOS 5.0. It's real nice and seems to work everything >I've tried on it. Also, take a look at the current copy of PC Magazine for a >nice review of the product and discussion about this thread. Hmmm...well, the reports I have are that DR-DOS 5.0 is better than DOS 4.01 but that there are still some problems with it, notably trying to get it to work at speeds past 25mhz. I have a 386-33, and if I REALLY need all the added benefits of DR-DOS or DOS 5.0 RIGHT NOW then here is the \ solution: device=C:\util\qemm\qemm.sys NOEMS ROM RAM device=C:\util\qemm\loadhi.sys c:\util\logitech\mouse.sys ...etc... shell=C:\DOS\4DOS\4DOS.COM QEMM frees up all the memory I practically need, and 4DOS gives me command line editing and recall, takes up less room than 3.3, and also allows aliasing and a bunch of other nifty things. And, best of all, it's shareware. Brian
silver@xrtll.uucp (Hi Ho Silver) (01/28/91)
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware, hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) typed: $Again, for reference: IBM told me that saying DOS Version 4.01 was $an error. They say that it is still DOS 4.00, with the CSDs applied. Hmm ... I know I've seen _something_ in the PC-DOS 4 package that said 4.01. The package definitely said 4.00; perhaps the diskettes were labelled DOS 4.01. -- __ __ _ | ...!nexus.yorku.edu!xrtll!silver | always (__ | | | | |_ |_) >----------------------------------< searching __) | |_ \/ |__ | \ | if you don't like my posts, type | for _____________________/ find / -print|xargs cat|compress | SNTF
plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (01/28/91)
/ fred@cdin-1.UUCP (Fred Rump) / 3:39 am Jan 26, 1991 / writes:
$ In this thread was a post from: chin, chung, gieszczykiewicz, kartassos and
$ suomalainen.
$ Aren't there any real people left using DOS? :) People like Brown and Smith?
$
:-(.
$ Anyway, folks all the niceties you're looking for in MS DOS 5.0 as vaporware
$ are available now in DR DOS 5.0. It's real nice and seems to work everything
$ I've tried on it. Also, take a look at the current copy of PC Magazine for a
$ nice review of the product and discussion about this thread.
$
The problem is: With all the nice DR DOS 5.0 features enabled, DR DOS 5.0
is NOT able to run Windows in enhanced mode. Now the question is: With
all the "loadhi" feature in DOS 5.0 enabled, will it be able to run
Windows in enhanced mode ? If it can, then, I think it has something
which DR DOS 5.0 hasn't. Otherwise, you are right .... in that case,
either DOS 5.0 is not too hot.
Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........
Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------,
########################################### :
E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, :
Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) |
Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__
Singapore 0410. SPLAT !
#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) (01/28/91)
$ Now the question is: With
$ all the "loadhi" feature in DOS 5.0 enabled, will it be able to run
$ Windows in enhanced mode ?
Absolutely. I have run Windows 3.0 under DOS 5.0 in enhanced mode.
$ If it can, then, I think it has something
$ which DR DOS 5.0 hasn't. Otherwise, you are right .... in that case,
$ either DOS 5.0 is not too hot.
$
$ Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........
$ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------,
$ ########################################### :
$ E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, :
hh
--
Harry Haas GTRI/RIDL/DB "What makes it DO that!?" - Bones
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!hh2
Internet: hh2@prism.gatech.edu hhaas@{gtri01|rmadsun}.gatech.edurcm@hpctdpa.HP.COM (Rick Myers) (01/30/91)
/ hpctdpa:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware / hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) / 11:08 am Jan 25, 1991 / > Again, for reference: IBM told me that saying DOS Version 4.01 was > an error. They say that it is still DOS 4.00, with the CSDs applied. > (Corrective Services Disks). It's apparently the public which use > the number 4.01 and 4.02 to indicate that they have applied the CSDs. > (that's what ONE person from IBM has said) Also, it might be worth > noting that there have been (at least) two CSDs for DOS 4.00. I have > applied both, and the ver command still responds with DOS 4.00. ------- My DOS says "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01" right on the master floppy disk label. I have never applied any 'CSDs'. My ver command responds with DOS 4.01. Rick rcm@hpctdpe.col.hp.com
userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) (02/01/91)
In article <19770001@hpctdpa.HP.COM>, rcm@hpctdpa.HP.COM (Rick Myers) writes: >/ hpctdpa:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware / hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) / 11:08 am Jan 25, 1991 / > >> Again, for reference: IBM told me that saying DOS Version 4.01 was >> an error. They say that it is still DOS 4.00, with the CSDs applied. >> (Corrective Services Disks). It's apparently the public which use >> the number 4.01 and 4.02 to indicate that they have applied the CSDs. >> (that's what ONE person from IBM has said) Also, it might be worth >> noting that there have been (at least) two CSDs for DOS 4.00. I have >> applied both, and the ver command still responds with DOS 4.00. >------- > >My DOS says "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01" right on the master floppy disk >label. I have never applied any 'CSDs'. My ver command responds with >DOS 4.01. > ...and you are NOT running IBM PC-DOS. You have MS-DOS. They are not the same thing. Never have been. Never will be. IBM has the rights to use MS-DOS, and then does their own additions/alterations, and sells PC-DOS. Compaq, Zenith, and any other manufacturer also can buy MS-DOS from Miscrosoft, and alter it for their machine and sell it. Everyone but IBM still calls it MS-DOS. It wasn't until somewhere around MS-DOS 3.3 that Microsoft began selling DOS directly (i.e. not through OEMs), and you could buy a box that was strictly from Microsoft. My MS-DOS 4.01 box says "Only to be sold with a computer", or words to that effect. Some manufacturers (and most clones) do not provide DOS at all: you have to get generic MS-DOS (or "borrow" someone else's, as probably happened before generic DOS became available). Dave Halliwell Let's be careful in there!
guy@contact.uucp (Guy Lemieux) (02/01/91)
In <19770001@hpctdpa.HP.COM> rcm@hpctdpa.HP.COM (Rick Myers) writes: >> Again, for reference: IBM told me that saying DOS Version 4.01 was >> an error. They say that it is still DOS 4.00, with the CSDs applied. >> (Corrective Services Disks). It's apparently the public which use >> the number 4.01 and 4.02 to indicate that they have applied the CSDs. >> (that's what ONE person from IBM has said) Also, it might be worth >> noting that there have been (at least) two CSDs for DOS 4.00. I have >> applied both, and the ver command still responds with DOS 4.00. >------- >My DOS says "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01" right on the master floppy disk >label. I have never applied any 'CSDs'. My ver command responds with >DOS 4.01. IBM likes to issue things called a "CSD". This is the equivalent of what other software companies call "1.00" to "1.01" type version numbers. And let's make a distinction here: there exist 2 *real* flavors of DOS, MS-DOS from Microsoft, and PC-DOS from IBM. >Rick >rcm@hpctdpe.col.hp.com PS: I work for IBM, but the usual disclaimers still apply. -- Guy Lemieux ENG SCI University of Toronto guy@contact.uucp 9 T 2 Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering
ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) (02/02/91)
rcm@hpctdpa.HP.COM (Rick Myers) writes: >/ hpctdpa:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware / hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) / 11:08 am Jan 25, 1991 / >> Again, for reference: IBM told me that saying DOS Version 4.01 was >> an error. They say that it is still DOS 4.00, with the CSDs applied. >> (Corrective Services Disks). It's apparently the public which use >> the number 4.01 and 4.02 to indicate that they have applied the CSDs. >> (that's what ONE person from IBM has said) Also, it might be worth >> noting that there have been (at least) two CSDs for DOS 4.00. I have >> applied both, and the ver command still responds with DOS 4.00. >------- >My DOS says "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01" right on the master floppy disk >label. I have never applied any 'CSDs'. My ver command responds with >DOS 4.01. Oh great, so now programmers will not know whether or not the DOS4 that their programs run under will have the bugs fixed.... Great thinking on IBM's part. >Rick >rcm@hpctdpe.col.hp.com -- Ben Thornton packet: WD5HLS @ KB5PM Video Associates Internet: ben@val.com Austin, TX uucp: ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben Did Schrodinger exist? ...or was that in another universe?
hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) (02/04/91)
In article <1991Feb1.222609.6564@val.com> ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes: >rcm@hpctdpa.HP.COM (Rick Myers) writes: >>My DOS says "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01" right on the master floppy disk >>label. I have never applied any 'CSDs'. My ver command responds with >>DOS 4.01. Mybe I wasn't clear enough. I made reference to what IBM had said about thier DOS, which is IBM PC-DOS, *not* Microsoft MS-DOS. As I understand, and Rick verified, MS-DOS *does* have a version called MS-DOS 4.01. There are MANY different DOSes out there, whith no perticular correlation between version numbers of different vendors (yeah, I know, I know . . Microsoft write most, if not all, of most of the versions, still . . ) >Oh great, so now programmers will not know whether or not the DOS4 that >their programs run under will have the bugs fixed.... Great thinking >on IBM's part. Yup. Sure was. As far as I know, IBM has never admitted to the fact that they are not the ONLY computer company in existence. And they've been known for years for their "great thinking". (Course, they've come up with some pretty good ideas, too.) >>Rick >>rcm@hpctdpe.col.hp.com >-- >Ben Thornton packet: WD5HLS @ KB5PM >Video Associates Internet: ben@val.com >Austin, TX uucp: ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben >Did Schrodinger exist? ...or was that in another universe? --
conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz (Conrad Bullock) (02/04/91)
In article <21140@hydra.gatech.EDU> hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) writes: >Mybe I wasn't clear enough. I made reference to what IBM had said about >thier DOS, which is IBM PC-DOS, *not* Microsoft MS-DOS. As I understand, >and Rick verified, MS-DOS *does* have a version called MS-DOS 4.01. There >are MANY different DOSes out there, whith no perticular correlation between >version numbers of different vendors (yeah, I know, I know . . Microsoft >write most, if not all, of most of the versions, still . . ) > >>Oh great, so now programmers will not know whether or not the DOS4 that >>their programs run under will have the bugs fixed.... Great thinking >>on IBM's part. I should point out that later revisions of IBM PC-DOS 4 have a SYSLEVEL command, that returns the CSD level installed. At least IBM release bug fixes, insteading of acknowledging and ignoring, or fixing only in the next full release. -- Conrad Bullock, Domain: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz The Cave MegaBBS, BBS Ph: + 64 4 643-429 Wellington, New Zealand.
uchuck@pelham.med.unc.edu (Charles Bennett) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb1.222609.6564@val.com> ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes: >rcm@hpctdpa.HP.COM (Rick Myers) writes: > >>/ hpctdpa:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware / hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) / 11:08 am Jan 25, 1991 / > >>> Again, for reference: IBM told me that saying DOS Version 4.01 was >>> an error. They say that it is still DOS 4.00, with the CSDs applied. >>> (Corrective Services Disks). It's apparently the public which use >>> the number 4.01 and 4.02 to indicate that they have applied the CSDs. > >>My DOS says "Microsoft MS-DOS 4.01" right on the master floppy disk >>label. I have never applied any 'CSDs'. My ver command responds with >>DOS 4.01. >Oh great, so now programmers will not know whether or not the DOS4 that >their programs run under will have the bugs fixed.... Great thinking >on IBM's part. > >>Rick >>rcm@hpctdpe.col.hp.com >-- >Ben Thornton packet: WD5HLS @ KB5PM Don't be so damn quick to criticize when you don't know what you are talking about!! IBM has included as one of the "fixes" for PC-DOS 4.0 a new command... "syslevel". This command goes much farther than the simple "ver" command. "Syslevel" gives the DOS version, the release date of that diskette, the CSD (Corrective Service Disk) or IFD (Internal Fix Disk) number that has been applied, and the release date of that diskette. In addition each CSD or IFD contains a text file for "bug" and "fix" info. One can trace the bugs and determine if the problem was ever addressed and when and how the fix was applied and which CSD of IFD needs to be used to correct the problem. It really is a much better way of tracking bugs and fixes than issuing 18 different versions of MS-DOS with the same "ver" = 4.01. I have found as many as 5 different dates on MS-DOS command.com. And ALL of them claim to be THE version 4.01. So tell me, which one is the most current, which one has what bugs fixed?????? Chuck Bennett INTERNET: uchuck@med.unc.edu Medical Sciences Teaching Labs BITNET: uchuck@unc CB# 7520 University of NC PHONE: 919-966-1134(w) Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7520
berger@atropa (Dire Wolf) (02/08/91)
jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes: >seeing (or likely to see) the problems they fix. Considering the number >of customers in the field the costs of distributing so many updates would >run up the price of the product to mainframe levels. Comments? *---- Yes - they could distribute fixes and patches on a BBS like Western Digital, Central Point Systems, etc. and make it very cheap. -- Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
hh2@prism.gatech.EDU (HAAS) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb7.220816.13113@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@atropa (Dire Wolf) writes: >jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes: >>seeing (or likely to see) the problems they fix. Considering the number >>of customers in the field the costs of distributing so many updates would >>run up the price of the product to mainframe levels. Comments? >*---- >Yes - they could distribute fixes and patches on a BBS like Western >Digital, Central Point Systems, etc. and make it very cheap. >-- > Mike Berger > Department of Statistics, University of Illinois Something that I foind interesting, is that IBM DOES have a BBS, and yes, DOS Patches ARE available on it. It's mainly for PC user group administrators, but is also open to the public. Since it is (or was once called) the IBM PC Regional Support Center BBS, then I suppose that there may be other BBS similar to this one in other parts of the country. It's here in Atlanta. The local number is 404-835-6600, and the Sysop is Wyn Easton. The board has turned almost exclusively OS/2, but DOS questions WILL be answered (as will AIX questions - but don't wait for one!). One of the better features is that is has a database of both IBM and non- IBM products for the PS/2 (some AT bus add-ons get through as well). If you call - be sure to join conference 13 and ask an AIX question, before they drop the support!! hh --- Harry Haas GTRI/RIDL/EB | Georgia Tech Research Institute Research Engineer II | Georgia Institute of Technology 404-528-7679 | Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ---------------------------------------------------------------- hh2@prism.gatech.edu "What makes it DO that?!" - Bones