beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman) (11/11/90)
I'm building a 386 system. Do I want to buy MS-DOS 3.3 or 4.01? Thanks for your help. -Pete beckman@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
hrbaan@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Hayo Baan) (11/12/90)
In <71077@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman) writes: ->I'm building a 386 system. Do I want to buy MS-DOS 3.3 or 4.01? ->Thanks for your help. -Pete -> ->beckman@copper.ucs.indiana.edu As I am using a 386 + VGA system my self, I have the following to say : You'll probably want the 4.01 for the extra features such as : - > 32MEG partitions, - being able to set yer screen to 50 (if yer using VGA) or 43 (if yer using EGA) lines by just using the mode command. - Nicer/improved commands, such as MEM, which shows allot more debug info than the old 3.3 version! - ... (There are more advantages, but I can't think of them right now) There are some disadvantages as well : - It takes up more memory than 3.3. (This didn't bother me much, although I had to adjust some parameters of the AUTOCAD program...) - ... (You'll get some more from other posts) One more thing that I found out is that if you're using 4.01 it is a major set back if you have to be working on a machine with 3.3 installed. Concluding : USE 4.01 instead of 3.3 PS. I've heard of DOS 5.0 which can allmost be completely installed in EXPANDED/EXTENDED memory, but I am not sure that it is availlable yet -- +------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+ | Hayo R. Baan | E-Mail : hrbaan@cs.ruu.nl | | Oudwijkerlaan 34 |-----------------------------------------------------| | 3581 TD UTRECHT | | | The Netherlands | A program is like a nose; | | | Sometimes it runs, sometimes it blows. | | Tel. 030-515586 | | +------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
schwalbe@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Jim Schwalbe) (11/13/90)
In article <4260@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> hrbaan@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Hayo Baan) writes: >In <71077@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman) writes: > >> I'm building a 386 system. Do I want to buy MS-DOS 3.3 or 4.01? >> Thanks for your help. -Pete >> >As I am using a 386 + VGA system my self, I have the following to say : >You'll probably want the 4.01 for the extra features such as : >- > 32MEG partitions, OK, I tried this once before and got no replies. Let me try again. The concenses I`ve heard from most people is that they prefer DOS 3.3 over 4.01 but that they wish they weren`t restricted to 32 M partitions on their hard drive. Well I pointed out some time ago that DAK (I've seen several people reference the 386SX system they are selling so I know at least some of you have seen the ad) advertises that they package DOS 3.31 (not 3.30) with their system and they state very clearly that it breaks the 32 M partition barrier. Now, my question is, can anyone confirm this? If so, where can I buy a copy of DOS 3.31? It seems like all I can find is 3.30. .---------------------------------------------------------------------------. : 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: {bu-cs,talcott} | `-------------+--' reach you." : : !encore!schwalbe `----------------' - Kahil Gibran : `---------------------------------------------------------------------------'
baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) (11/13/90)
In article <13227@encore.Encore.COM> schwalbe@pinocchio.UUCP (Jim Schwalbe) writes: >In article <4260@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> hrbaan@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Hayo Baan) writes: >>In <71077@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu >(Peter Beckman) writes: >> >>> I'm building a 386 system. Do I want to buy MS-DOS 3.3 or 4.01? >>> Thanks for your help. -Pete >>> >>As I am using a 386 + VGA system my self, I have the following to say : >>You'll probably want the 4.01 for the extra features such as : >>- > 32MEG partitions, > >OK, I tried this once before and got no replies. Let me try again. The >concenses I`ve heard from most people is that they prefer DOS 3.3 over 4.01 >but that they wish they weren`t restricted to 32 M partitions on their hard >drive. Well I pointed out some time ago that DAK (I've seen several people >reference the 386SX system they are selling so I know at least some of you have >seen the ad) advertises that they package DOS 3.31 (not 3.30) with their system >and they state very clearly that it breaks the 32 M partition barrier. Now, my Most people don't realize this, but the 32MB limitation in DOS 3.3 only applies to the partition that you boot off of. In other words you can have partitions greater than 32MB, as long the partition is not the boot partition. I have DOS 3.3 using a 212MB hard disk with two partition. My C: drive is 32MB, thats the one I boot off of, and my D: drive is 180MB.
phys169@canterbury.ac.nz (11/13/90)
In article <71077@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman) writes: > I'm building a 386 system. Do I want to buy MS-DOS 3.3 or 4.01? It depends what you need to do. If you want something better than 3.3 then look beyond DOS 4. DOS 5 is by far the best choice for a 386, since you'll probably want to use the extra memory. I use Digital Research DOS 5.0, and its very good (not just able to use large disks and extended memory, but there's a lot of "nice touches" - it feels like a polished product). MSDOS 5.0 also sounds good, but I haven't tried it yet. Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) (11/14/90)
schwalbe@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Jim Schwalbe) writes: > .... If so, where can I buy a copy of DOS >3.31? It seems like all I can find is 3.30. DRDOS V3.41 is the same (nearly) as MS-DOS V3.31 (which really was a special for some clones) It has many more features and is cheaper, but has a few hairs when it comes to networking. DRDOS V5 solved all those problems and is MUCH better. It even allows most of your TSRs and drivers to be in hi memory, giving anything up to 620K of TPA! Howie ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard J. Harvey | c = 1802617499785.254116 f/f Head, Avionics Integration Section | (furlongs/fortnight) Aeronautical Research Laboratory |----------------------------- Defence Science and Technology Organisation | Phone: +61 8 259 6322 Salisbury, South Australia | FAX: +61 8 259 5507 | Email: hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (11/14/90)
In article <1990Nov13.012007.1283@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.UUCP (Ron Baalke) writes: >Most people don't realize this, but the 32MB limitation in DOS 3.3 only applies >to the partition that you boot off of. In other words you can have >partitions greater than 32MB, as long the partition is not the boot partition. >I have DOS 3.3 using a 212MB hard disk with two partition. My C: drive is >32MB, thats the one I boot off of, and my D: drive is 180MB. Err.. before making a wild claim like this, even if it is true, you probably ought to specify EXACTLY what DOS 3.3 you are running.. Ie. is it plain vanila MS-DOS 3.30 directly from Microsoft? (Obviously not). or is it Compaq DOS 3.31 ? or is it Zenith MS-DOS 3.30 ? Etc.. The plain vanilla MS-DOS 3.30 from Microsoft can indeed create extra partitions and logical drives within those partitions, but it does not permit creation of a logical drive larger than 32MB in ANY partition.. unless of course, one augments this with DMDRVR.BIN or some other third party driver. But then, most of us already know this.. -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (11/15/90)
>(Jim Schwalbe) >Well I pointed out some time ago that DAK (I've seen several people >reference the 386SX system they are selling so I know at least some of you have >seen the ad) advertises that they package DOS 3.31 (not 3.30) with their system >and they state very clearly that it breaks the 32 M partition barrier. Now, my >question is, can anyone confirm this? If so, where can I buy a copy of DOS >3.31? It seems like all I can find is 3.30. When 3.3 was the latest and greatest DOS version, several PC makers added large volume support to 3.3 and typically relabelled it 3.31. The large volume was implemented through a special disk driver and FDISK program supplied by the maker. The problem with this scheme is there was no standard so large hard disks partitions created this way were incompatible. I know of some cases where an attempt to upgrade from "3.31" to 4.01 required trashing the hard disk to make 4.01 recognize the hard disk. In addition some programs did not run with the large partitions and special disk driver. The bottom line is 3.31 is an unofficial nonstandard variant of DOS put out by some PC makers. Each one is different. Use at your own risk. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP CPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (11/16/90)
In article <4876@bwdls58.UUCP> mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >In article <1990Nov13.012007.1283@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.UUCP (Ron Baalke) writes: >>Most people don't realize this, but the 32MB limitation in DOS 3.3 only applies >>to the partition that you boot off of. In other words you can have >>partitions greater than 32MB, as long the partition is not the boot partition. >>I have DOS 3.3 using a 212MB hard disk with two partition. My C: drive is >>32MB, thats the one I boot off of, and my D: drive is 180MB. > >Err.. before making a wild claim like this, even if it is true, >you probably ought to specify EXACTLY what DOS 3.3 you are running.. >Ie. is it plain vanila MS-DOS 3.30 directly from Microsoft? (Obviously not). >or is it Compaq DOS 3.31 ? >or is it Zenith MS-DOS 3.30 ? > >Etc.. > >The plain vanilla MS-DOS 3.30 from Microsoft can indeed create extra partitions >and logical drives within those partitions, but it does not permit creation >of a logical drive larger than 32MB in ANY partition.. unless of course, one >augments this with DMDRVR.BIN or some other third party driver. > >But then, most of us already know this.. You need to get term straight. In MS-DOS 3.30, there are two terms to think about. The first is a partition. Yes, MS-DOS CAN make multiple partitions, a boot partition of 32M, and another (extended) partition that is the rest of the disk, regardless of size. (Up to a limit, 512KB for a single disk rings a bell, but not sure). After that, you create logical drives within the extended partition, no one logical drive can be greater than 32M. So the bottom line is that as far as useability is concerned, with plain MS-DOS 3.30, the largest drive (real or logical) is 32M. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
ralphs%halcyon.uucp@seattleu.edu (11/16/90)
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes: > >(Jim Schwalbe) > >and they state very clearly that it breaks the 32 M partition barrier. Now, > >question is, can anyone confirm this? If so, where can I buy a copy of DOS > >3.31? It seems like all I can find is 3.30. > When 3.3 was the latest and greatest DOS version, several PC makers > added large volume support to 3.3 and typically relabelled it 3.31. COMPAQ was one of these. > The large volume was implemented through a special disk driver and > FDISK program supplied by the maker. The problem with this scheme No driver is needed with COMPAQ DOS 3.31. ComputerLand still sells it (around $90, I think). I run it on two True Blue IBM PC/XT's, a noname 386/25 clone, and a COMPAQ DeskPro, with the same good results. If you just want large-partition support (without drivers), it's smaller than 4.01 and should work well. And yes, caveat emptor.
morash@ug.cs.dal.ca (Dave Morash) (11/19/90)
In article <7kkqs6w163w@halcyon.uucp> ralphs%halcyon.uucp@seattleu.edu writes: >dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes: [stuff about large volume support in special versions of dos 3.3 typically relabelled 3.31 deleted] > >COMPAQ was one of these. I believe COMPAQ did this by increasing the sector size. It would seem that this is somewhat of a trade off, between a larger partition and "wasted space" from the larger sectors. -- Dave Morash morash@ug.cs.dal.ca morash%dalcsug%dalcs@watmath.uucp morash%dalcsug@dalcs.uucp
david@csource.oz.au (david nugent) (11/19/90)
In <15090019@hpspcoi.HP.COM> dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes: > When 3.3 was the latest and greatest DOS version, several PC makers > added large volume support to 3.3 and typically relabelled it 3.31. > The large volume was implemented through a special disk driver and > FDISK program supplied by the maker. The problem with this scheme > is there was no standard so large hard disks partitions created this way > were incompatible. I know of some cases where an attempt to upgrade > from "3.31" to 4.01 required trashing the hard disk to make 4.01 > recognize the hard disk. In addition some programs did not run with > the large partitions and special disk driver. The scheme Compaq used in their DOS 3.31 is identical to that used by MS-DOS 4.0 and upwards. No special driver required. FDISK from 4.01 recognises the partition correctly, and you can upgrade from Compaq DOS 3.31 to DOS 4.x with no problems at all. I can't speak for any other DOS 3.31 - I've never seen any other than the one supplied with a Compaq 386/20 I used to use. I also noted that the changes made to calling conventions in the direct disk read/write functions (INT 25H & 26H) are identical to those used by DOS 4.x. -- Fidonet: 3:632/348 SIGnet: 28:4100/1 Imex: 90:833/387 Data: +61-3-885-7864 Voice: +61-3-826-6711 Internet/ACSnet: david@csource.oz.au Uucp: ..!uunet!munnari!csource!david
betsey@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) (11/19/90)
In article <4260@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> hrbaan@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Hayo Baan) writes: >In <71077@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman) writes: > >->I'm building a 386 system. Do I want to buy MS-DOS 3.3 or 4.01? >->Thanks for your help. -Pete >-> >->beckman@copper.ucs.indiana.edu > >You'll probably want the 4.01 for the extra features such as : >- > 32MEG partitions, This can be done with Compaq Dos 3.3....which allows for unlimited size partitions (I have my hard drive set up as one 65 meg partition...inefficient, but it works). CompaqDOS is, in general, nicer than MS-DOS...in my opinion. However, I do not like Microsoft in general, so keep that in mind. Betsey ---<---<-@ G(TB)^2
kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov19.032141.23893@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> betsey@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) writes: >CompaqDOS is, in general, nicer than MS-DOS...in my opinion. >However, I do not like Microsoft in general, so keep that in >mind. Microsoft writes Compaq DOS, under contract. It's identical to normal DOS, except for the changes Compaq requests. -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
betsey@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) (11/20/90)
In article <997@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: >In article <1990Nov19.032141.23893@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> betsey@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth Fike) writes: >>CompaqDOS is, in general, nicer than MS-DOS...in my opinion. >>However, I do not like Microsoft in general, so keep that in >>mind. > > Microsoft writes Compaq DOS, under contract. It's identical to normal >DOS, except for the changes Compaq requests. > > >-- > _ >Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com >DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 >VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last > > 96.37% of all statistics are made up. Yes, but the Compaq version is still superior. AND it "lacks" some bugs found in good ol' MS-DOS. So I stand by what I said...there are REASONS for the changes Compaq requests. Betsey ---<---<-@ G(TB)^2