prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) (06/12/91)
I just read a very positive review of the new MS-DOS (5.0), which Microsoft has just released. Claims it: - takes up much less RAM than previous versions; - includes the very good undelete and unformat utilities from PC Tools Deluxe; - dumps EDLIN in favor of a full-screen text editor; - includes a DOS SHELL that features task switching; - has a much-improved setup routine, which will take advantage of the memory between 640K and 1 meg on 386 and 486 machines; - unlike the notorious version 4.01, has been extensively beta-tested and debugged before release. I've also heard (in much less detail) that Digital Research's new DR-DOS 5.0 is quite an imrpovement over MS-DOS 4.x. I'd be very interested in informed comment on these two products. Supposedly either makes Windows 3.0 run better - true? I'm particularly interested in comment from an office-environment perspective: i.e., no real power users, no programming, just operating machines running Windows, WordPerfect, PageMaker, Lotus, DataEase, and etc. And perhaps most importantly, do 286's realize any significant benefits from these two products, or are 386s really required to see noticeable improvement? Let the flames begin... prb@chinet.chi.il.us Paul Botts
smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) (06/13/91)
prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) writes: >I just read a very positive review of the new MS-DOS (5.0), which >Microsoft has just released. Claims it: >- takes up much less RAM than previous versions; How much is 'much less'? To be specific, how much more base memory will I get over my DOS 4.01? >- includes the very good undelete and unformat utilities from PC Tools But I already have a utility to do that. Big deal. >Deluxe; >- dumps EDLIN in favor of a full-screen text editor; I already have a very good full-screen FAST text editor--instantaneous response. >- includes a DOS SHELL that features task switching; But I MULTITASK with Desqview! What's the advantage? >- has a much-improved setup routine, which will take advantage of the >memory between 640K and 1 meg on 386 and 486 machines; My QEMM already does that! >- unlike the notorious version 4.01, has been extensively beta-tested >and debugged before release. I have absolutely no bugs in my system now. Can anybody give me a good reason why I should upgrade to DOS 5.0 from DOS 4.01??? Getting a measly 5k or 10k more base memory is NOT worth $60!!! Stephen M. Smith \ + / <smsmith@magnus. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ acs.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
yev_g@athena.mit.edu (Yevgeny Gurevich) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.170655.7003@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes: >prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) writes: >>I just read a very positive review of the new MS-DOS (5.0), which >>Microsoft has just released. Claims it: >>- takes up much less RAM than previous versions; > >How much is 'much less'? To be specific, how much more base memory >will I get over my DOS 4.01? > I previously ran DOS 4.01 with QEMM 5.12. I had about 586K free after drivers, buffers, etc. With the DOS 5.0 with QEMM 5.12, I have 621K free. With JUST DOS 5.0 and Himem.SYS, I have 609K but I have not had much time to experiment with the non-QEMM option. >>- includes the very good undelete and unformat utilities from PC Tools > >But I already have a utility to do that. Big deal. Just a matter of convenience. As you state, no great addition for those who already have such utilities. >>Deluxe; >>- dumps EDLIN in favor of a full-screen text editor; > >I already have a very good full-screen FAST text editor--instantaneous >response. The editor they supply is fine - nothing to write home about. Stick with the one you know, love and trust. >>- includes a DOS SHELL that features task switching; > >But I MULTITASK with Desqview! What's the advantage? > If you have multitasking software, then this adds nothing. I noticed that the switcher is very slow and would suggest getting DV or WIN if you want to use multiple apps at the same time. Although the task-switching capabilities are there, they don't seem efficient. >>- has a much-improved setup routine, which will take advantage of the >>memory between 640K and 1 meg on 386 and 486 machines; > >My QEMM already does that! Keep QEMM, but keep in mind that even QEMM won't load DOS into high memory. >>- unlike the notorious version 4.01, has been extensively beta-tested >>and debugged before release. > >I have absolutely no bugs in my system now. True. DOS 4.00 scared too many people away from 4.01. I, too, had no bugs. The "no-bugs" DOS 5.0 is mainly the comment that you shouldn't expect problems to start cropping up once you switch. > >Can anybody give me a good reason why I should upgrade to DOS 5.0 >from DOS 4.01??? Getting a measly 5k or 10k more base memory is >NOT worth $60!!! > >Stephen M. Smith \ + / I would beg to differ. I have seen the addition of more than 30K of memory and applications like Windows seem to run a tad faster. The price is also reasonable if you get it from dealers such as Egghead (I purchased mine from them for 39.99 + tax.) All in all, don't expect revolutionary changes and additions. It provides you with the functionality of old DOS + QEMM + utilities + DRDOS + 4DOS in one package. Don't forget the support for 2.88 meg floppies. [===============================================================] [ Yevgeny Gurevich ___/~\____/~\_/~~~~\__/~\______/~\_ ] [ 500 Memorial Drive |____/~\__/~\__/~\______/~\____/~\__| ] [ Cambridge, Mass. 02139 |_____/~\/~\___/~~~\_____/~\__/~\___| ] [ ________________________|______/~~\____/~\________/~\/~\____| ] [ yev_g@athena.mit.edu |______/~~\____/~~~~\______/~~\_____| ] [===============================================================]
ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.170655.7003@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes: > >Can anybody give me a good reason why I should upgrade to DOS 5.0 >from DOS 4.01??? Getting a measly 5k or 10k more base memory is >NOT worth $60!!! > How about an extra 50K+ on a 286 or better! Leaves 630K Free I am told (will find out tomorrow when My copy arrives) -- -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- |/ (ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au) | This space for rent. |\evin (ins845b@monu3.cc.monash.edu.au) | All reasonable offers accepted -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------
valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) (06/13/91)
ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) writes (in response to a query as to whether there was any real utility in this new DOS thingie): >How about an extra 50K+ on a 286 or better! Leaves 630K Free I am told (will >find out tomorrow when My copy arrives) Will this really work on a 286 with (only) extended mem? -- (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)
smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) (06/13/91)
>>Can anybody give me a good reason why I should upgrade to DOS 5.0 >>from DOS 4.01??? Getting a measly 5k or 10k more base memory is >>NOT worth $60!!! > >How about an extra 50K+ on a 286 or better! Leaves 630K Free I am told (will >find out tomorrow when My copy arrives) Yes, but what about people in my situation? Sure, DOS 5 can load itself in high memory, but if you use Desqview then you CAN'T let DOS 5 use the high memory because Desqview needs that area to load itself, plus it uses the first 64k of extended memory for HMA which DOS 5 wants to use too. Here's a comment from the desqview newsgroup which illustrates what I mean: Well, I've installed IBM DOS 5.0. (Not Microsoft, since they haven't shipped me a review copy yet). It's great if you DON'T RUN QEMM/DV! The problem is: DOS= command. If you DOS=HIGH to load DOS in the HMA, you get something like 630K of conventional memory. Unfortunatly, Desqview now loads, and since it can't use the HMA takes conventional ram and your back to SQUARE ONE! Also, if you say DOS=UMB then Desqview can't use any UMBs either! I settled for leaving DOS low and using QEMM for all upper memory operations. Of course, you may as well stick with DOS 4.01! In other words, I'm NOT asking if DOS 5 is an improvement over previous DOS versions! I'm asking if DOS 5 is worth the upgrade for those of use who use QEMM and DV to multitask. I've received a couple of email letters that completely missed this point. On the other hand, a few people have noted correctly the following benefits: --2.88 MEG floppy support --no more need for share.exe (6k savings, though I use noshare.exe which only uses 0.2k) --10-20k more base ram (for QEMM and Desqview users) --ability to still use Desqview and QEMM (QEMM is a better high memory manager) --cheap price ($39 from Egghead 1-800-EGG-HEAD) --someone noted a slight increase in speed (true?) --4DOS-like commands --DOS help (with the parameter '?' I believe) Drawbacks: --not compatible with Manifest!!! Quarterdeck is supposedly writing a compatible version (I use Manifest several times a day too :( ). --someone said that Quarterdeck is writing a new version of Desqview that will be totally compatible with DOS 5 (available for $10 upgrade fee). To me this means there are incompatibilities; anybody have specifics? Stephen M. Smith \ + / <smsmith@magnus. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ acs.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.131643.3646@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes: >ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) writes (in response to >a query as to whether there was any real utility in this new DOS thingie): > >>How about an extra 50K+ on a 286 or better! Leaves 630K Free I am told (will >>find out tomorrow when My copy arrives) > >Will this really work on a 286 with (only) extended mem? >-- > > (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu) Yep, I think they guarantee at least 60K odd on a 286 up. Note only dos will go into high mem on a 286. On a 386 it will load your TSR's and drivers too. -- -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- |/ (ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au) | This space for rent. |\evin (ins845b@monu3.cc.monash.edu.au) | All reasonable offers accepted -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------
valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) (06/14/91)
ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) writes (replying to my query): >>>How about an extra 50K+ on a 286 or better! Leaves 630K Free I am told (will >>>find out tomorrow when My copy arrives) >> >>Will this really work on a 286 with (only) extended mem? >Yep, I think they guarantee at least 60K odd on a 286 up. Note only dos will >go into high mem on a 286. On a 386 it will load your TSR's and drivers too. Yes, but if you run DV ( as I do), there is no net gain. There may even be a net loss if the new DOS uses the HMA less efficiently than DV does. -- (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)
adamsd@crash.cts.com (Adams Douglas) (06/15/91)
In <1991Jun12.170655.7003@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes: [point by point analysis of why everything MSDOS 5.0 does his system already does] >Can anybody give me a good reason why I should upgrade to DOS 5.0 >from DOS 4.01??? Getting a measly 5k or 10k more base memory is >NOT worth $60!!! Then don't buy it. I don't get the impression someone is saying you _must_ buy it.
android@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andy Wilks) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun11.201719.26512@chinet.chi.il.us> prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) writes: >I just read a very positive review of the new MS-DOS (5.0), which >Microsoft has just released. Claims it: >- takes up much less RAM than previous versions; I usually had about 520K available w/ 4.1. With 5.0 I get 612K!! I was so happy I added SMARTDRV which dropped me to 594K, so I'm still 74K ahead... This is on a plain ol' 286 with 1Mb of RAM. >- includes the very good undelete and unformat utilities from PC Tools >Deluxe; >- dumps EDLIN in favor of a full-screen text editor; The new editor is nice but the IBM version only works on REAL(?) pc's because it call QBASIC which uses the ROM BASIC. Edlin is still there! >- includes a DOS SHELL that features task switching; Seems to work well, I had Borland C++, Quattro Pro, Qmodem and a command shell running all at once. I was expecting a crash any second but it held up well. I chickened out after about 15 minutes but will try for longer tomorrow. >- has a much-improved setup routine, which will take advantage of the >memory between 640K and 1 meg on 386 and 486 machines; Installation was VERY painless!! renamed config and autoexec to .OLD. and installs generic versions. It evens sets the prompt to $P$G. >- unlike the notorious version 4.01, has been extensively beta-tested >and debugged before release. I think they were SOOOO guilty about DOS 4, they tried extra hard on 5. It is very polished, even the manuals look good. (IBM, haven't seen the MS version.) > )I've also heard (in much less detail) that Digital Research's new DR-DOS )5.0 is quite an imrpovement over MS-DOS 4.x. )I'd be very interested in informed comment on these two products. )Supposedly either makes Windows 3.0 run better - true? )I'm particularly interested in comment from an office-environment )perspective: i.e., no real power users, no programming, just operating )machines running Windows, WordPerfect, PageMaker, Lotus, DataEase, and )etc. And perhaps most importantly, do 286's realize any significant )benefits from these two products, or are 386s really required to see )noticeable improvement? Most software seems to work pretty well, It even has a command to Lie to programs if they are looking for an older DOS version!! The HELP is also a great new feature. just type /? after a command for a complete syntax list and explanation. >Let the flames begin... I doubt that DOS 5 will get flamed much... except of course by the regular crowd of DOS haters. ( ONLY two more versions necessary to obtain "Version Number Parity" with Macintosh! ) > >prb@chinet.chi.il.us >Paul Botts /*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/ * I don't express opinions, I just follow orders... (___) * / (o o) / * One of the few .sig's -> /-------\ / * / Andy Wilks with ASCII livestock. / | ||O / * android@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu * ||,---|| * / University of Texas at Austin ^^ ^^ / * copyright (c) 1934,1942,1961,1990,1991 BEVO * /*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
android@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andy Wilks) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.025806.14143@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au> ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) writes: )In article <1991Jun13.131643.3646@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes: )>ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) writes (in response to )>a query as to whether there was any real utility in this new DOS thingie): )> )>>How about an extra 50K+ on a 286 or better! Leaves 630K Free I am told (will )>>find out tomorrow when My copy arrives) )> )>Will this really work on a 286 with (only) extended mem? )>-- It sure does... I had 612K available for executable programs on a 286 with 1Mb of RAM!! After I added SMARTDRV, Norton Filesave and Logitech Mouse Driver I had 548K free for applications. )> )> (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu) ) )Yep, I think they guarantee at least 60K odd on a 286 up. Note only dos will )go into high mem on a 286. On a 386 it will load your TSR's and drivers too. ) ) )-- )-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- >|/ (ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au) | This space for rent. >|\evin (ins845b@monu3.cc.monash.edu.au) | All reasonable offers accepted >-----------------------------------------+--------------------------------- /*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/ * I don't express opinions, I just follow orders... (___) * / (o o) / * One of the few .sig's -> /-------\ / * / Andy Wilks with ASCII livestock. / | ||O / * android@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu * ||,---|| * / University of Texas at Austin ^^ ^^ / * copyright (c) 1934,1942,1961,1990,1991 BEVO * /*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
whenry@lindy.Stanford.EDU (homo obsolescensis) (06/21/91)
Has anyone tried 5.0 with QRAM/loadhi? I am currently (dos 3.3) getting as much as 690K on a 286 with 1 Meg ram (a NEAT machine), with a bunch of drivers and tsr installed high, and would hate to lose this. Walter Henry
jrobi@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (James Barton) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.221531.9977@morrow.stanford.edu> whenry@lindy.Stanford.EDU (homo obsolescensis) writes: >Has anyone tried 5.0 with QRAM/loadhi? I am currently (dos 3.3) >getting as much as 690K on a 286 with 1 Meg ram (a NEAT machine), >with a bunch of drivers and tsr installed high, and would hate to lose this. > >Walter Henry I've got a 286 NEAT machine and I'm running The Last Byte (which provides access to UMB's for NEATs). I picked up another 35K or so of main memory with DOS 5 because, I think, DOS 5 doesn't just load command.com high, it also loads MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS high. I get about 641,000 free even with a whole *load of device drivers. If you're getting 690 you must not have a VG, or have I missed some other way the sqeeze main mem from this board? -- James Barton I've never quibbled, if it was ribbald, jrobi@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu I would devour where others merely nibbled.