dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) (03/29/91)
I am buying a new 386DX/25 with a 130MEG hard drive. I am not sure which DOS version to get. I have a 286 w/65MEG drive now, running 3.2. Of course I have two 33MEG partitions which gives me a C and D drive. I really don't want to now have a C,D,E,F & F drive. I can get a copy of DOS 4.0 (IBM) for a good price (free) but see a DOS 4.01 out there. Will both of these let me "see" the full size on the C prompt? What was the differance between 4.0 and 4.01? I see people talking about 4DOS but I can't FTP from my sight :-( Any help would be great. Thanks in advance. Daniel Dawdy@tellabs.com
moore@iastate.edu (Moore Brian Joseph) (03/30/91)
In <5706@tellab5.tellabs.com> dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) writes: . . . > What was the differance between 4.0 and 4.01? . . . Usually when there is a minute version number change, there is a bug fix involved, and that's what they did. 4.0 was buggy and 4.01 supposedly fixed the bugs. -- _______________________________________________________________________ / / / / Brian J. Moore / moore@iastate.edu / /__________________________________/____________________________________/
tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) (03/30/91)
The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: na Reply-To: tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) Organization: Standard Disclaimer References: <5706@tellab5.tellabs.com> Distribution: na Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1991 16:44:31 GMT In article <5706@tellab5.tellabs.com> dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) writes: >I am buying a new 386DX/25 with a 130MEG hard drive. I am not >sure which DOS version to get. [...] >4.0 and 4.01? I see people talking about 4DOS but I can't FTP >from my sight :-( Any help would be great. > Now you're talking... :) Wait for a couple of months, get DOS 5.0. All features of 4.01, single partitions, + more, without the bugs of 4.01. 4DOS is not DOS, it is a COMMAND.COM replacement. It will run on top of DOS 5.0 very nicely (I know, I do it). You don't have to ftp 4DOS, you can get it directly from JP Software, email them for details at: 75300.210@compuserve.com Good luck - if you have to use DOS, 5.0 and 4DOS are a nice combination. Tony
daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby) (04/01/91)
While we're on the subject of dosses (dosum, dosi?), I have ms dos 3.2, which has served me fine, but now that I've upgraded from a 720k drive to a 1.4m drive on my 286, I can only format 1.4m disks. format /4 gives me "bad track 0" errors. I'm figuring that I need to upgrade to dos 3.3 at least. Does this make sense? Does anybody know the differences between dos 3.2 and 3.3 (and how about 4.01?). Does anybody have a history file of dos? I'd be curious about the differences between the various dosses as they progressed from 1 to 5.
BMS101@psuvm.psu.edu (04/01/91)
the format command is basicly the same from version 1 on it changes in
version 4.0. Prior to 4.0 the /4 switch is for doing a 360 in a 1.2
to do a 720 in a 1.44 you must use /N:9 /T:80. in dos 4.0 you would
issue the size switch like /F:720 or /F:360 etc...
-----------------
B O R N T O C O D E !
Luck is directly |BRADLEY SMALL | Is it really "PROGRAMMING"
proportional to how |BMS101 AT PSUVM | when it works right the
hard one works! |BMS101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU | first time.cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (04/01/91)
From article <1991Mar31.195238.24513@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, by daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby): > > Does anybody know the differences between dos 3.2 and 3.3 (and how > about 4.01?). I believe there were some floating point exception fixes in DOS 3.3, as well as some other thingies. Check the patches directory of the MS C Compiler (5.1 had 'em anyway). They explain the problems and have source patches for 3.2. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
zanolla@motcid.UUCP (Donald J. Zanolla) (04/01/91)
daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby) writes: >While we're on the subject of dosses (dosum, dosi?), >I have ms dos 3.2, which has served me fine, but now that >I've upgraded from a 720k drive to a 1.4m drive on my 286, I can only format >1.4m disks. format /4 gives me "bad track 0" errors. I'm >figuring that I need to upgrade to dos 3.3 at least. Does this make >sense? >Does anybody know the differences between dos 3.2 and 3.3 (and how >about 4.01?). >Does anybody have a history file of dos? I'd be curious about the >differences between the various dosses as they progressed from 1 to 5. Part of your problem could be your BIOS chip. I have a 286 and have been told that if I want to go from 720k to 1.44m I must upgrade my BIOS chip. I do not think you have to go to dos 3.3 . -- * /\ /\ Donald J. Zanolla //\\//\\ work:1-708-632-2228 Motorola Inc.; Mail: IL27/2240 ///\\//\\\ fax: 1-708-632-4552 1501 W. Shure Dr, Arlington Heights, IL 60004 /// \/ \\\
buddington-paul@cs.yale.edu (Paul Buddington) (04/03/91)
daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby) writes: >While we're on the subject of dosses (dosum, dosi?), >I have ms dos 3.2, which has served me fine, but now that >I've upgraded from a 720k drive to a 1.4m drive on my 286, I can only format >1.4m disks. format /4 gives me "bad track 0" errors. I'm >figuring that I need to upgrade to dos 3.3 at least. Does this make >sense? According to the DOS manuals I've seen: DOS 3.1 does not support any 3.5-inch drive types DOS 3.2 added support for 720k but NOT 1.44m drives DOS 3.3 added support for 1.44m drives I don't know how you managed to format 1.44m disks on your system with DOS 3.2, but I've seen stranger things happen (like IBM allowing you to format 720k disks at 1.44m with no complaints!) I'd say you should switch to DOS 3.3 (at least). That's what I'm using, and I have no desire to switch to 4.01. But DOS 5 looks like it might have a few worthwhile features - I guess we'll have to wait and see. - Paul -- ======================================================================== Paul Buddington Yale University Buddington-Paul@CS.Yale.Edu or YaleCS.bitnet QuickMail: Paul_Buddington.CIS@YCCATSMTP.YCC.Yale.Edu
system@syzzle.chi.il.us (SYSTEM 0PERATOR) (04/03/91)
dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) writes: > I am buying a new 386DX/25 with a 130MEG hard drive. I am not > sure which DOS version to get. I have a 286 w/65MEG drive now, > running 3.2. Of course I have two 33MEG partitions which gives > me a C and D drive. I really don't want to now have a C,D,E,F & F > drive. I can get a copy of DOS 4.0 (IBM) for a good price (free) > but see a DOS 4.01 out there. Will both of these let me "see" > the full size on the C prompt? What was the differance between > 4.0 and 4.01? I see people talking about 4DOS but I can't FTP > from my sight :-( Any help would be great. For larger partitions (larger than 32MB), you can use a program such as Ontrack's Disk Manager. Which uses a device drive to allow larger partitions. This will work with dos 3.3 (and I think 3.2). You could go to dos 4.0 (4.01 is a bug fix of 4.0). I have heard many people expressing that they do not like dos 4.x (for whatever reasons). Compaq dos 3.3 will allow large disk partitions. DRDOS 5.0 is available now and also allows large disk partitions. MS-DOS 5.0 *should* be out real soon also. 4DOS will work with any of the above, and is a command.com replacement (it is not a full OS), and offers many commands and features which are not provided by all these OSs, and is well worth checking out! +------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Al Oomens (awol) | Inside every LARGE program is a | | awol@syzzle.chi.il.us | small program trying to get out | +------------------------+---------------------------------+
daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby) (04/03/91)
I wrote: >>While we're on the subject of dosses (dosum, dosi?), >>I have ms dos 3.2, which has served me fine, but now that >>I've upgraded from a 720k drive to a 1.4m drive on my 286, I can only format >>1.4m disks. format /4 gives me "bad track 0" errors. I'm >>figuring that I need to upgrade to dos 3.3 at least. Does this make >>sense? buddington-paul@cs.yale.edu (Paul Buddington) writes: >According to the DOS manuals I've seen: > DOS 3.1 does not support any 3.5-inch drive types > DOS 3.2 added support for 720k but NOT 1.44m drives > DOS 3.3 added support for 1.44m drives >I don't know how you managed to format 1.44m disks on your system with >DOS 3.2, but I've seen stranger things happen (like IBM allowing you to >format 720k disks at 1.44m with no complaints!) That's what I thought! I'd always heard you had to have DOS 3.3 to get high density stuff. Anyhow, I have a theory to why it works: I have a '286 so I can set what kind of drive I use in the CMOS. I figure that the CMOS knows the size of the drive so format goes right ahead and formats it to it's capacity. It would explain why I can't format low density disks since the drive and DOS aren't actually talking to eachother. I should get a copy of DOS 3.1 and try this out. If it formats it, the '286 is taking care of everything. If it doesn't, I have poltergeists. ---------- David Ruby daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois "This calls for a special blend of psychology and extreme violence" vyvyan
steve@cs.fau.edu (Steve Smith) (04/03/91)
<I can't figure out how to quote your message>
One difference between DOS 3.2 & 3.3 is that 3.3 is the
first version to support 1.44 MB floppy drives.
s
--
___________________________________________________________
(_____ | (______ Internet: steves@cusdec.acc.fau.edu
___________)___|__________) Bitnet: S_SMITH@ACC.FAU.EDUganzer@cod.NOSC.MIL (Mark T. Ganzer) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr03.014036.21071@cs.fau.edu> steve@cs.fau.edu (Steve Smith) writes: >One difference between DOS 3.2 & 3.3 is that 3.3 is the >first version to support 1.44 MB floppy drives. This is not entirely true. There were OEM versions of 3.2 that supported 1.44MB floppy drives. In particular, Zenith's DOS 3.21 supported them, and I have another OEM version of 3.21 at home that claims to support 1.44 drives (although I haven't tried it). -- Mark T. Ganzer Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego UUCP: {bonnie,sdcsvax,gould9,hp-sdd} - !nosc!ganzer {apl-uw,ncr-sd,bang,crash } / Internet: ganzer@nosc.mil Compu$erve: 73617,442
billj@uop.edu (Snugglupagus) (04/05/91)
zanolla@motcid.UUCP (Donald J. Zanolla) writes: >daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby) writes: >>While we're on the subject of dosses (dosum, dosi?), >>I have ms dos 3.2, which has served me fine, but now that >>I've upgraded from a 720k drive to a 1.4m drive on my 286, I can only format >>1.4m disks. format /4 gives me "bad track 0" errors. I'm >>figuring that I need to upgrade to dos 3.3 at least. Does this make >>sense? survey says...BRRAAAATTT!!!! format /4 is used for 360k floppies only. to format a 720k disk in a 1.44M drive, use format /t:80 /n:9. this will tell it how many tracks and sectors the disk has. it's a pain in the butt, but it works. >>Does anybody know the differences between dos 3.2 and 3.3 (and how >>about 4.01?). >>Does anybody have a history file of dos? I'd be curious about the >>differences between the various dosses as they progressed from 1 to 5. WHOOPS! excuse me, i'm wrong! i just reviewed the msdos 3.3 manual, and it says that support for 1.44M 3.5" disks was added with 3.3. anyway, here are the "printed" differences between 3.2 and 3.3: - performance improvements. several internal enhancements and a new command fastopen, improve ms-dos performance, especially with applications that use many files. - support for 1.44 megabyte, 3-1/2 inch disks. - support for four serial (com) ports. previous versions of ms-dos supported two. - enhancements to config.sys commands including buffers, stacks, device. ms-dos 3.3 also includes a new config.sys command, country. - ability to use partitions larger than 32 megabytes. you can create extended dos partitions for disks larger than 32 megabytes with fdisk. - improved national language support. ms-dos 3.3 offers the ability to select alternate language-specific character sets (called code pages) instead of the standard u.s. character set. three new commands - chcp, nlsfunc, and select, and several enhanced ms-dos commands, including keyb and mode, support code page selection. in addition, the config.sys command, country, and two new installable device drivers allow you to select language-specific code pages. - enhanced batch processing capabilities. - ability to make a system disk formatted by an earlier version of ms-dos bootable with ms-dos 3.3. this is possible because ms-dos 3.3 allows the io.sys system file to be noncontiguous on the disk. - various enhancements to existing commands, including append format mode attrib graphics restore backup keyb time date whew! i hope this helps. a lot of that is just microsoft flexing its word power, but it sounds like that in order to use your new floppy drive, you have to upgrade to at least 3.3. a few months ago, i copied a pirated version of pc-dos 4.0 from our labs. i was going to try it like shareware - if i liked it, i'd buy it. to make a long story short, i ended up trashing the thing and going back to 3.3. 4.0 takes up TWICE the hard disk space as 3.3, with no readily apparent reason. >Part of your problem could be your BIOS chip. I have a 286 and have been >told that if I want to go from 720k to 1.44m I must upgrade my BIOS chip. hmmm....strange. i have a 286/10 with a 1.44M disk and it works just fine. of course, my bios IS f*cked up so i can't get past the 640k barrier, but.... >I do not think you have to go to dos 3.3 . yes you do. >-- >* /\ /\ >Donald J. Zanolla //\\//\\ work:1-708-632-2228 >Motorola Inc.; Mail: IL27/2240 ///\\//\\\ fax: 1-708-632-4552 >1501 W. Shure Dr, Arlington Heights, IL 60004 /// \/ \\\ snugglupagus -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Steppin' on toes is a common routine | Send email/flames to: Sneakin' up from behind | billj@uop.uop.edu You won't get anywhere |----------------------------------- Dancin' out of time" - Deborah Gibson | Disclaimer: It's all mine! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) (04/06/91)
The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: na Reply-To: tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) Organization: Standard Disclaimer References: <1991Mar29.164431.18022@novell.com> <1991Mar31.195238.24513@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1991 23:03:03 GMT In article <1991Mar31.195238.24513@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> daver@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Ruby) writes: >I've upgraded from a 720k drive to a 1.4m drive on my 286, I can only format >1.4m disks. format /4 gives me "bad track 0" errors. I'm >figuring that I need to upgrade to dos 3.3 at least. Does this make >sense? No. Instead try format a: /t:80 /n:9 You were trying to format a 720K diskette to 5.25" 360K format... doesn't work. If you want to switch to another DOS, wait a couple of months for 5.0. Much better than 4.01 and you can install it without destroying any of your data (unless you want to get rid of silly multiple partitions). Tony > >Does anybody know the differences between dos 3.2 and 3.3 (and how >about 4.01?). >Does anybody have a history file of dos? I'd be curious about the >differences between the various dosses as they progressed from 1 to 5.
einari@rhi.hi.is (Einar Indridason) (04/07/91)
What about a DOS called 'UNIX'????? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Internet: einari@rhi.hi.is | "Just give me my command line and drag UUCP: ..!mcsun!isgate!rhi!einari | the GUIs to the waste basket!!!!" Surgeon Generals warning: Masking the 8th bit can seriously damage your brain!!