garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) (04/25/91)
Many thanks to all those who responded to my request for help in installing DOS 4.01. In case anyone's interested, what I ultimately had to do was bypass the install program and just copy the files over myself, doing a little minor editing on the autoexec.bat and config.sys (since they both referenced files as 'a:\blah'). Anyway, 4.01 is up and running just fine now, except for one thing: every time I boot up it tells me that I should be using SHARE.EXE with 'large media' (my hard drive is 85 meg. or so). The FM says that share.exe is to make sure that DOS doesn't do writes to swapped floppies, but I can't swap my hard drive. What purpose does share.exe serve wrt my hard drive? I've seen replacements for share.exe (the 3-line notshare.com comes to mind) - why are these better (and how can notshare be better when it's _so_ much smaller)? -Gary -- |Gary Brainin |BITNET: garygm%portia.stanford.edu@stanford| |garygm@portia.stanford.edu |UUCP: ...decwrl!portia.stanford.edu!garygm | |"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right | |most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr24.193839.22130@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes: > Anyway, 4.01 is up and running just fine now, except for one thing: >every time I boot up it tells me that I should be using SHARE.EXE with >'large media' (my hard drive is 85 meg. or so). [...] What purpose does >share.exe serve wrt my hard drive? I've seen replacements for share.exe (the >3-line notshare.com comes to mind) - why are these better (The author of "noshare.com", the original replacement for share, speaks:) Well they are different, not necessarily better. The problem occurs when writing to a file using FCBs (an obsolete technique discouraged by Microsoft), when the file is more than 32 megabytes displaced into the drive. The disk gets corrupted. SHARE.EXE maps the FCB calls into acceptable "handle" calls, allowing the old application to run. The problem with this is two fold: Share takes valuable memory, and some programs refuse to run if it is loaded (the primary purpose of share is to maintain file sharing in network applications). NOSHARE (and the NOTSHARE reverse-engineered rewrite -- it's even smaller because it frees the environment segment) take a different tact. When a program attempts to open or create a file using FCBs, the return "file not found" and "creation error" respectively. Thus the old programs will not run. You don't need to permanently install this program. Just throw out the programs that refuse to run, replacing them with more modern versions. If all your programs run, you can dispense with both NOSHARE and SHARE. -- Tom Almy toma@sail.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) (04/25/91)
garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes: > Anyway, 4.01 is up and running just fine now, except for one thing: >every time I boot up it tells me that I should be using SHARE.EXE with >'large media' (my hard drive is 85 meg. or so). The FM says that >share.exe is to make sure that DOS doesn't do writes to swapped >floppies, but I can't swap my hard drive. What purpose does share.exe >serve wrt my hard drive? I've seen replacements for share.exe (the >3-line notshare.com comes to mind) - why are these better (and how can >notshare be better when it's _so_ much smaller)? This is a FAQ, but basically, SHARE fixes FCB calls so that they work right, while the cheapie replacements simply cause them to fail. Which is prefereable is a matter of personal taste, but either is better than having them *appear* to succeed. -- (Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)
rice@willow23.cray.com (Jonathan Rice) (04/26/91)
In article <9397@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: >The problem occurs when writing to a file using FCBs (an obsolete technique >discouraged by Microsoft)... >NOSHARE...[returns an error so] the old programs >will not run. >Tom Almy I installed Mr. Almy's noshare last week. So far, the only program it has caught is the COMP file comparison utility that Microsoft ships with DOS 4.01 (not paying attention to their own policy?). And I have 6kb more free RAM. Quite nice. BTW, change the name of SHARE.{COM|EXE, I forget} to something else, or sneaky old DOS will load it in addition to noshare without even asking. -- Jonathan C. Rice | Internet: rice@cray.com | UUCP: uunet!cray!rice
north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) (05/02/91)
In article <9397@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: >In article <1991Apr24.193839.22130@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes: >> Anyway, 4.01 is up and running just fine now, except for one thing: >>every time I boot up it tells me that I should be using SHARE.EXE with >>'large media' (my hard drive is 85 meg. or so). [...] What purpose does >>share.exe serve wrt my hard drive? I've seen replacements for share.exe (the >>3-line notshare.com comes to mind) - why are these better > >(The author of "noshare.com", the original replacement for share, speaks:) > >Well they are different, not necessarily better. > >The problem occurs when writing to a file using FCBs (an obsolete technique >discouraged by Microsoft), when the file is more than 32 megabytes displaced >into the drive. The disk gets corrupted. SHARE.EXE maps the FCB calls into >acceptable "handle" calls, allowing the old application to run. > >The problem with this is two fold: Share takes valuable memory, and some >programs refuse to run if it is loaded (the primary purpose of share is >to maintain file sharing in network applications). > >NOSHARE (and the NOTSHARE reverse-engineered rewrite -- it's even smaller >because it frees the environment segment) take a different tact. When a ^^^^> I think you mean tack. Anyway, if you're the Tom Almy who invented CapsLock --> Cntrl I'm sure you know what you're talking about it's the best thing since sliced bread. Where can I send a contribution? Mark
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (05/02/91)
| >NOSHARE (and the NOTSHARE reverse-engineered rewrite -- it's even smaller | >because it frees the environment segment) take a different tact. When a | ^^^^> | I think you mean tack. Anyway, if you're the XXXXXXXX who invented Isn't this little correction a bit tactless? If not downright tacky? (sorry, I couldn't resist :-) :-)
north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May1.201214.28334@news.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: >| >NOSHARE (and the NOTSHARE reverse-engineered rewrite -- it's even smaller >| >because it frees the environment segment) take a different tact. When a >| ^^^^> >| I think you mean tack. Anyway, if you're the XXXXXXXX who invented > > >Isn't this little correction a bit tactless? If not downright tacky? > >(sorry, I couldn't resist :-) :-) Hmm. Well, I don't know. If you had any tact you probably wouldn't be so tacky as to point out such a tactless faux pas. *^) 8^). Sorry no harm intended.
ralphs@seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) (05/02/91)
north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes: > In article <1991May1.201214.28334@news.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indian > >| >NOSHARE (and the NOTSHARE reverse-engineered rewrite -- it's even smaller > >| >because it frees the environment segment) take a different tact. When a > >| ^^^^> > >| I think you mean tack. Anyway, if you're the XXXXXXXX who invented > >Isn't this little correction a bit tactless? If not downright tacky? > Hmm. Well, I don't know. If you had any tact you probably wouldn't be > so tacky as to point out such a tactless faux pas. *^) 8^). Sorry no harm int I was going to tack something on to this thread, but thought it best be left alone, lest I get attacked in the process. Oh, such a warm, tactile feeling... -- halcyon!ralphs@seattleu.edu The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++
toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (05/05/91)
In article <1954@manta.NOSC.MIL> north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) writes: >[...]Anyway, if you're the Tom Almy who invented >CapsLock --> Cntrl I'm sure you know what you're talking about it's the >best thing since sliced bread. Where can I send a contribution? As far as I'm, concerned, you have just contributed! Thanks for the endorsement! Tom Almy toma@sail.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply -- Tom Almy toma@sail.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply