jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (05/17/91)
First off let me apologize for cross-posting between these newsgroups, but
DOS users who read DOS newsgroups and DOS users who read Mac newsgroups have
VERY different perspectives and I want both of them. Please do not start a
flame war out of this.
Now for the subject of this post:
The other day I was told by a person from the Electronics Shop that MS-DOS
would fix ALL of DOS's problems. Though I sincerely doubt that ANY OS will
ever have all of its problems solved, I have the following questions
regarding MS-DOS 5.0.
1) What problems does it solve (this guy said that the 640K limit would
go away completely so that any amount of memory could be used and that
it would have built in "sturdy" multitasking among other things)?
2) How good are the actual improvements looking/how important are they?
3) How soon is this supposed to be coming out?
This information is requested solely out of my desire to be better informed
about MS-DOS.
Jess Hollebytehead@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Price) (05/17/91)
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: ...stuff about apologies deleted... > The other day I was told by a person from the Electronics Shop that MS-DOS > would fix ALL of DOS's problems. Though I sincerely doubt that ANY OS will > ever have all of its problems solved, I have the following questions > regarding MS-DOS 5.0. > > 1) What problems does it solve (this guy said that the 640K limit would > go away completely so that any amount of memory could be used and that > it would have built in "sturdy" multitasking among other things)? DOS 5.0 will work on an 8088 machine. This ensures that it will never blow away the 640K limit. If you are running on a '286 or '386 with extended memory, it will give you a lot more of that memory in 640K free. This is a limitation of a) the 8088, the lowest common denominator, and b) IBM's memory map specification for the PC. > 2) How good are the actual improvements looking/how important are they? The bugs of DOS 4.X have been wiped out. Help is available for every command. There are some additional commands that most people should have been included from the beginning, including unformatting and undeleting files. The DOSSHELL program looks more usable. It's more compatible than DR DOS 5.0 > 3) How soon is this supposed to be coming out? Soon! > This information is requested solely out of my desire to be better informed > about MS-DOS. > > Jess Holle This is from bytehead@bluemoon.uucp bytehead%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
heathh@kanga (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) (05/17/91)
I've had a chance to unofficially play with DOS 5.0, and here are my thoughts on your questions: In article <1991May16.174140.26161@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: > 1) What problems does it solve (this guy said that the 640K limit would > go away completely so that any amount of memory could be used and that > it would have built in "sturdy" multitasking among other things)? NOT! The guy is on drugs. The version I saw (5.000.149 Beta) gave me (286 2MB 12MHz) about 630k RAM free. It laoded the COMMAND.COM kernel high, which sucked becasue I use 4DOS, and 4DOS could not access the XMS memory that was reserved for COMMAND.COM. A bit of fiddling in config.sys was required to load 4DOS into high RAM. Multitasking? I doubt. At least, not on my 286. Of course, I did not have any docs to help me out... (As if MS-DOCS would help anybody. :-) ) > 2) How good are the actual improvements looking/how important are they? The most disturbing thing about DOS-5.0 is it's new HELP command. The command brings up stuff like: C:\>HELP DIR DIR /wp [d:][filespec] Yahoo! On the other hand, you can't get rid of it, even if you don't load command.com. i.e., HELP overrides 4DOS's internal (and much better) HELP command. Coincidence, or deliberate annoyance of command.com haters? > This information is requested solely out of my desire to be better informed > about MS-DOS. > > Jess Holle -- Heath Hunnicutt | X-Wing Pilot: "Ahhh! I'm gonna die!" heathh@pooh.cco.caltech.edu | Rebel Command: "Stay on target..." 131.215.48.30 | ... my life at Caltech --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the unlikely event that I might seem to be representing Caltech's opinion on any matter, I am not. In fact, if it is brought to my attention that I share any particular opinion with Caltech's administration and other assorted Yahoos, I will change that opinion of mine.
dahosek@biivax.dp.beckman.com (05/17/91)
In article <1991May17.161025.10599@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, heathh@kanga (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes: > In article <1991May16.174140.26161@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu > (Jess M Holle) writes: >> 1) What problems does it solve (this guy said that the 640K limit would >> go away completely so that any amount of memory could be used and that >> it would have built in "sturdy" multitasking among other things)? > NOT! The guy is on drugs. The version I saw (5.000.149 Beta) >gave me (286 > 2MB 12MHz) about 630k RAM free. It laoded the COMMAND.COM kernel high, >which > sucked becasue I use 4DOS, and 4DOS could not access the XMS memory that was > reserved for COMMAND.COM. A bit of fiddling in config.sys was required to >load > 4DOS into high RAM. What exactly is happening here? is it just that you didn't have enough XMS left over for 4DOS to load there or is there some serious conflict with memory management? (I'd hate to think that DOS 5 would, say take over all my XMS). Anyone out there have specific experiences with the DOS5/4DOS/QEMM combo? -dh -- Don Hosek // Quixote Digital Typography 714-625-0147 dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu On contract to Beckman Instruments 714-961-4562 dahosek@beckman.com
bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May17.161025.10599@nntp-server.caltech.edu> heathh@kanga (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes: [stuff deleted] > The most disturbing thing about DOS-5.0 is it's new HELP command. The > command brings up stuff like: >C:\>HELP DIR >DIR /wp [d:][filespec] > > Yahoo! On the other hand, you can't get rid of it, even if you don't load >command.com. i.e., HELP overrides 4DOS's internal (and much better) HELP >command. Coincidence, or deliberate annoyance of command.com haters? > The Dos 5.0 help is an exe program. To get 4DOS's version of help just make sure that your path specifies your 4dos directory before it specifies your DOS directory. (boy, that bugged me too! :-) As far as deliberate annonyance of command.com haters....... [getting on soapbox] I found it really anonying that the installation program deleted my shell= statement and replaced it with a shell statement to invoke command.com. They could of at least REM'ed out the old statement so you could change it back easily, but nooooooooooo! they delete the line so you have dig through your manuals to find out what the shell statement should be. I don't understand why Micro$oft doesn't just buy out J. P. Software (the authors of 4dos) and ship 4dos with DOS 5.0. It's obvious that they'll never be able to catch up. [getting off soapbox] -- Scott Bostater Georgia Tech Research Institute - Radar Systems Analysis "My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from Him" -Ps 62.1 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!bb16 Internet: bb16@prism.gatech.edu
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (05/18/91)
Because then 4DOS would stagnate under MicroSoft's hands, get a GUI from hell,
and eventually turn into 0.4DOS... anyways, the installation should make a
copy of your old config.sys & autoexec.bat files >somewhere<, hunt around your
drive a bit. At the very least, you should backup your system before
installing a new dos (esp a beta)!!
Re: comments...
DOS can optionally turn your 640-1024k area into UMB and the first 64k of
extended ram for the dos kernal (himem.sys or qemm/etc must be used of course).
This may wreak havoc with 4DOS, I don't know. Its very easy to get around
of course, just let QEMM/last-byte/etc load your drivers and so forth high,
let DOS load itself into first 64k of extended (but that'll shrink DV space),
and 4DOS will find the xms area to swap to.
Re: help, rename the DOS help.exe to something else, like "DOSHELP.EXE". You
don't wanna get rid of it, some of those DOS commands can get pretty arcane. :)
Finally, 4DOS v4.0 is due out in the ?? future, beta-tester positions are being
accepted at the 4DOS BBS (just look in the manual, don't email me). I don't
think they're looking for heavy-4DOS users; rather towards the novicial end.
--
Apple II Forever | 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | IBMs get the job done
Parik Rao | Amiga - for the creative mind | Class of 1994
Macintosh - buy it or Apple will sue you.nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) (05/19/91)
I too have been "unofficially" testing dos 5.0 and have a question about its share.exe If you don't load it, it doesn't warn about "large media". Unlike dos 4.01, if its in your root dir (or shell directory), it does not appear to get loaded automatically. Does this mean dos 5.0 takes care of most sharing violations (excluding network shares?), and i don't need it? Still playing it safe for now though... nye
heathh@roo (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) (05/19/91)
>> [I said (not very eloquently) that DOS 5.0 used too much XMS] > What exactly is happening here? is it just that you didn't have > enough XMS left over for 4DOS to load there or is there some > serious conflict with memory management? (I'd hate to think that > DOS 5 would, say take over all my XMS). Anyone out there have > specific experiences with the DOS5/4DOS/QEMM combo? > > -dh The install program added a line to CONFIG.SYS that overrode my current HIMEM.SYS settings. Once I took that line out, all was well again. This goes back to something that all usoft packages have ever seen do when they install: unintelligently edit CONFIG.SYS and AUTOXEC.BAT the poor user ends up with more than one PATH statement, or more than one line that says: DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS Also, DOS 5.0 install _DELETED_ the lines that said COMSPEC=...4DOS and SHELL=...4DOS on my system. Once before (with QuickBasic (not so quick) ), Microsoft changed my path in my autoexec so that a later statement: MOUSE found the mouse driver that came with uSoft QB, and not my Logitech mouse driver. Sigh. I have to wonder sometimes if uSoft sits around and thinks these things out. Not whether they don't consider the effects of their own actions, but whether they try to come up with actions that will have the effect of disturbing systems that do not meet uSoft's ideal picture of uSoft-riden systems. -- Heath Hunnicutt | X-Wing Pilot: "Ahhh! I'm gonna die!" heathh@pooh.cco.caltech.edu | Rebel Command: "Stay on target..." 131.215.48.30 | ... my life at Caltech --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the unlikely event that I might seem to be representing Caltech's opinion on any matter, I am not. In fact, if it is brought to my attention that I share any particular opinion with Caltech's administration and other assorted Yahoos, I will change that opinion of mine.
heathh@roo (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) (05/19/91)
In article <29299@hydra.gatech.EDU> bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) writes: [Responding to my earlier post] > The Dos 5.0 help is an exe program. To get 4DOS's version of help just make > sure that your path specifies your 4dos directory before it specifies your DOS > directory. (boy, that bugged me too! :-) Thanks! I was under the mistaken impression that both commands were internals. > As far as deliberate annonyance of command.com haters....... > [getting on soapbox] [Had same experience with Deletion of Shell and Comspec lines...] > [getting off soapbox] I forgot to mention that in my original post, although I have just posted another followup that talks about it. Thanks ;-) for reminding me.. -- Heath Hunnicutt | X-Wing Pilot: "Ahhh! I'm gonna die!" heathh@pooh.cco.caltech.edu | Rebel Command: "Stay on target..." 131.215.48.30 | ... my life at Caltech --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the unlikely event that I might seem to be representing Caltech's opinion on any matter, I am not. In fact, if it is brought to my attention that I share any particular opinion with Caltech's administration and other assorted Yahoos, I will change that opinion of mine.
heathh@roo (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May19.103341.10003@nntp-server.caltech.edu> nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) writes: > I too have been "unofficially" testing dos 5.0 and have a question about > its share.exe > > If you don't load it, it doesn't warn about "large media". Unlike dos 4.01, > if its in your root dir (or shell directory), it does not appear to get > loaded automatically. Does this mean dos 5.0 takes care of most sharing > violations (excluding network shares?), and i don't need it? Still playing > it safe for now though... The only way to properly load SHARE.EXE is to place it in your C:\ directory, where it is loaded on boot-up along with IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.SYS. I don't know whether 5.0 has fixed the FCB problem with big drives or not, but it is worth mentioning here that DOS 4.01 would only stop complaining about SHARE if you kept it in the root directory or in a COMSPEC directory. Even if you installed it as a device driver in CONFIG.SYS, DOS 4.01 still complained. On some group, I posted a long-winded explanation of the purpose of SHARE, I won't repeat it here. Until further notice, I am keeping SHARE.EXE in my C:\. -- Heath Hunnicutt | X-Wing Pilot: "Ahhh! I'm gonna die!" heathh@pooh.cco.caltech.edu | Rebel Command: "Stay on target..." 131.215.48.30 | ... my life at Caltech --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the unlikely event that I might seem to be representing Caltech's opinion on any matter, I am not. In fact, if it is brought to my attention that I share any particular opinion with Caltech's administration and other assorted Yahoos, I will change that opinion of mine.
nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) (05/20/91)
heathh@roo (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes: >In article <1991May19.103341.10003@nntp-server.caltech.edu> >nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) writes: >> I too have been "unofficially" testing dos 5.0 and have a question about >> its share.exe >> >> If you don't load it, it doesn't warn about "large media". Unlike dos 4.01, >> if its in your root dir (or shell directory), it does not appear to get ... >The only way to properly load SHARE.EXE is to place it in your C:\ directory, >where it is loaded on boot-up along with IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.SYS. I don't >know whether 5.0 has fixed the FCB problem with big drives or not, but it is >worth mentioning here that DOS 4.01 would only stop complaining about SHARE if >you kept it in the root directory or in a COMSPEC directory. Even if you >installed it as a device driver in CONFIG.SYS, DOS 4.01 still complained. On What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am fully aware of the functions of share.exe, as well as the proper and improper methods of loading it. What i mean here is that using various memory mappers, i discern NO difference between having share in your root and not having it at all. OBVIOUSLY, it shows up if i load it in config.sys, in batch, or from command line. Essentially, what i am getting at is the following: Did dos 5.0 fix the FCB problem in and of itself (i.e., its own resident file handlers) and is share now only what the title implies; namely, extra "sharing" features needed for networked file systems? This would explain the lack of a warning message in the boot sequence, etc. >... Until further notice, I am keeping SHARE.EXE in my C:\. Again, until further notice, i am not just keeping it in my root, i am loading it explicitly. nye
nbadie@ohrd.uucp (Navid Badie) (05/22/91)
In article <29299@hydra.gatech.EDU> bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) writes: >why Micro$oft doesn't just buy out J. P. Software (the authors of 4dos) and >ship 4dos with DOS 5.0. It's obvious that they'll never be able to catch up. Pardon my ignorance, but what's 4DOS? You all seem to like it a lot, is it something like DR DOS? You can reply by email if this question is too stupid to waste bandwidth on. I am at nbadie@ohrd.UUCP. Thanks.
boba@hpwarau.hp.com (Bob Alexander) (05/23/91)
I would like to switch to DR-DOS 5.0 or MS-DOS 5.0 so that I can get rid of the partitioning on my 40M disk. But I am a Unix junkie, and I'd like to know if these new DOSs support changing the switchar to -, so that I can use forward slashes on my directory paths. I know that the switchar was undocumented in DOS 3.3, so there's no guarantee it would be implemented in the future. Has anyone tried this? Bob Alexander boba@hpwala.wal.hp.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Organizations don't have opinions: individuals do. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the stockholders, employees, or directors of Hewlett-Packard.
phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (05/28/91)
In article <2117@hpwala.wal.hp.com>, boba@hpwarau.hp.com (Bob Alexander) writes: > I would like to switch to DR-DOS 5.0 or MS-DOS 5.0 so that I can get rid > of the partitioning on my 40M disk. But I am a Unix junkie, and I'd > like to know if these new DOSs support changing the switchar to -, so > that I can use forward slashes on my directory paths. > The Switchar DOS call certainly works under DRDOS 5. Many commands (e.g. Assign, Dir) take notice of the change, some (e.g. SID) don't. You can't use the attrib command properly after changing the switchar to "-" (it expects a "-" for some parameters anyway). Hope this helps, Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
teexnma@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) (05/31/91)
In <1991May28.155024.896@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: >In article <2117@hpwala.wal.hp.com>, boba@hpwarau.hp.com (Bob Alexander) writes: >> I would like to switch to DR-DOS 5.0 or MS-DOS 5.0 so that I can get rid >> of the partitioning on my 40M disk. But I am a Unix junkie, and I'd >> like to know if these new DOSs support changing the switchar to -, so >> that I can use forward slashes on my directory paths. >> >The Switchar DOS call certainly works under DRDOS 5. Many commands (e.g. >Assign, Dir) take notice of the change, some (e.g. SID) don't. You can't use >the attrib command properly after changing the switchar to "-" (it expects a >"-" for some parameters anyway). **** Well, under MS-DOS v.5 it is certainly possible to use both: "-" for options, *and* "/" for directory separators. I am running Anarkey v.3 with DOS5 and it works OK. --Nino -- Janet: nino@uk.ac.ucl.sm.mph \ Nino Margetic Earn/Bitnet: nino@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk \ Dept. of Medical Physics Internet: nino%mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\ University College London Bang-path: ....!mcvax!ukc!ucl-mph!nino \ Tel:+44-71-380-9300/x5313