ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Timothy Takahashi) (07/20/90)
In article <1121@fang.dsto.oz> hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes: >I have been running DR-DOS V3.41 for several months and have been very pleased >with it. Sure, there are a few differences, but the only real problem has >been its inability to work 100% with PC-NFS. I've heard of Dr-DOS, but never actually seen anybody run it. What are the "few differences?" Is it better/faster/smaller than MS-DOS? Just curious, tim
bianco@cs.odu.edu (David J. Bianco) (07/21/90)
In article <8502@ur-cc.UUCP> ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Timothy Takahashi) writes: I've heard of Dr-DOS, but never actually seen anybody run it. What are the "few differences?" Is it better/faster/smaller than MS-DOS? I've never attempted to find any difference from a programmer's POV for DR-DOS 4.0, but I was pleased with it both as a programmer and as a user. The command interpreter lies somewhere between COMMAND.COM and 4DOS. I much prefer 4DOS, though. The only problem I ever had with it concerned disk swapping with Turbo C++ which I why I switched to MSDOS. Since DR-DOS allows 512MB partitions if you have the space, it's disk structure is inherently non-standard (or at least, not what 3.x uses. I dont know about DOS 4.x, since I dont have it). This gave TC++ some problems which caused it to lock up when trying to shell to disk. However, many programs could function quite well with it. PC Tools 5.5 did a very good job with it, even the disk optimizer. Some of its other interesting features include: password protection of files and subdirs, online DOS help, comes with the GEM environment, inludes LIM4.0 drivers, command line editing and history (up to 4K buffer), full screen editor comes standard (its not much but its better than nothing!), and, if you are a systems designer, it can operate from ROM.
hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) (07/21/90)
I have been running DR-DOS V3.41 for several months and have been very pleased
with it. Sure, there are a few differences, but the only real problem has
been its inability to work 100% with PC-NFS.
Has anybody tried DR-DOS V5 yet? Any other comments?
Thanks
Howie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Harvey | I work at the speed of light
Aeronautical Research Laboratory | But so does a snail!
Defence Science and Technology Organisation +-----------------------------
Salisbury, South Australia | Phone: +61 8 259 6322
| FAX: +61 8 259 5507
Note correct Email address ==> | Email: hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------frotz@drivax.UUCP (Frotz) (07/22/90)
ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Timothy Takahashi) writes: ] In article <1121@fang.dsto.oz> hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes: ] >I have been running DR-DOS V3.41 for several months and have been very pleased ] >with it. Sure, there are a few differences, but the only real problem has ] >been its inability to work 100% with PC-NFS. ] I've heard of Dr-DOS, but never actually seen anybody run it. What are the ] "few differences?" Is it better/faster/smaller than MS-DOS? Take most of the projected MSDOS 5 features (due out end of this year?) and we already have them, now. The only feature that I have heard about is something called unformat (MSDOS5). DRDOS has a very good installation/setup program that will allow tailoring of your environment. It will manage your [d]config.sys and your autoexec.bat files automagically. It has a nice way of handling your special commands that it doesn't understand that only requires you to modify your autoexec.bat file once. All future setup changes will be contained within it's bounded region. Slick...;-} Some of the features found in the [D]CONFIG.SYS processing are: * Loading device drivers into high memory (after loading EMM386). * Prompting for the device driver to be loaded. eg: ABCD.SYS? (Y/N) * Prompting with a message of your choice. eg: Do you want to load your ABCD driver? (Y/N) * ECHO in CONFIG.SYS eg: ECHO Loading the ABCD driver. Other features: * There is a MEM command that attempts to display all interesting information about the current memory usage. (This is very good, but could have been better by detailing the EMS usage and presenting a map of memory above 1M). (The graphic map belong doesn't translate very well to 7-bit ASCII.;-( +- Address -+- Owner --+- Size -----------+- Type ----------------------------+ | 0:0000 | -------- | A0000h, 655360 | ------------- RAM --------------- | +-----------+----------+------------------+-----------------------------------+ | 0:0000 | -------- | 400h, 1024 | Interrupt vectors | | 40:0000 | -------- | 100h, 256 | ROM BIOS data area | | 50:0000 | DR DOS | 200h, 512 | DOS data area | | 70:0000 | DR BIOS | 18D0h, 6352 | Device drivers | | 70:052F | PRN | | Built-in device driver | | 70:0541 | LPT1 | | Built-in device driver | | 70:0553 | LPT2 | | Built-in device driver | | 70:0565 | LPT3 | | Built-in device driver | | 70:0577 | AUX | | Built-in device driver | | 70:0589 | COM1 | | Built-in device driver | | 70:059B | COM2 | | Built-in device driver | | 70:05AD | COM3 | | Built-in device driver | | 70:05BF | COM4 | | Built-in device driver | | 70:0659 | CLOCK$ | | Built-in device driver | | 70:0695 | CON | | Built-in device driver | | 70:06A7 | A:-F: | | Built-in device driver | | 1FD:0000 | DR DOS | 11B0h, 4528 | System | | 1FD:0048 | NUL | | Built-in device driver | | 318:0000 | DR DOS | 7A00h, 31232 | System | | 34B:0000 | EMMXXXX0 | | Loadable device driver | | 34D:0000 | CACHE$ | | Loadable device driver | | AB8:0000 | COMMAND | 1330h, 4912 | Program | | BEB:0000 | COMMAND | BD0h, 3024 | Environment | | CA8:0000 | -------- | F0h, 240 | FREE | | CB7:0000 | MARK | 100h, 256 | Environment | | CC7:0000 | MARK | 560h, 1376 | Program | | D1D:0000 | HISTORY | 100h, 256 | Environment | | D2D:0000 | HISTORY | 1DB0h, 7600 | Program | | F08:0000 | KERMIT | 100h, 256 | Environment | | F18:0000 | KERMIT | 18280h, 98944 | Program | | 2740:0000 | KERMIT | FB0h, 4016 | Data | | 283B:0000 | KERMIT | 9610h, 38416 | Data | | 319C:0000 | COMMAND | 100h, 256 | Data | | 31AC:0000 | COMMAND | 1330h, 4912 | Program | | 32DF:0000 | COMMAND | 110h, 272 | Environment | | 32F0:0000 | MEM | 100h, 256 | Environment | | 3300:0000 | MEM | 12A10h, 76304 | Program | | 45A1:0000 | -------- | 5A5E0h, 370144 | FREE | +-----------+----------+------------------+-----------------------------------+ | C000:0000 | -------- | 8000h, 32768 | ------------- ROM --------------- | | C800:0000 | EMS | 10000h, 65536 | ---------- EMS memory ----------- | | DE00:0000 | -------- | 8000h, 32768 | ---------- Upper RAM ------------ | +-----------+----------+------------------+-----------------------------------+ | DE01:0000 | CON | | Loadable device driver | | DF01:0000 | PC$MOUSE | | Loadable device driver | | E20D:0000 | DR DOS | 2800h, 10240 | 20 Disk buffers | +-----------+----------+------------------+-----------------------------------+ | F000:0000 | -------- | 10000h, 65536 | ------------- ROM --------------- | +-----------+----------+------------------+-----------------------------------+ +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 3<DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Conventional memory DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD> | | 0h 10000h 20000h 30000h 40000h 50000h 60000h 70000h | | 0K 64K 128K 192K 256K 320K 384K 448K | | CDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDD | | 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 | | 2222222222222222................1111 | | EDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDEDDDDDD | | 512K 576K 640K 704K 768K 832K 896K 960K 1MB | | 80000h 90000h A0000h B0000h C0000h D0000h E0000h F0000h 100000h | | >DDDDDDDDDDDDDD>3<DDDDDDDDDDDDDD Upper memory DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD>3 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Key: 2=RAM 1=ROM 0=Shadow ROM 655,360 bytes, ( 640K), conventional memory 446,432 bytes, ( 435K), largest available block 3,145,728 bytes, (3072K), extended memory 3,145,728 bytes, (3072K), extended memory used 0 bytes, ( 0K), extended memory available ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * All commands (except built-ins) have a /H[elp] usage and this usage is aware of the current screen size. eg: MODE /Help generates: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MODE R1.22 Printer and screen mode utility Copyright (c) 1988,1989 Digital Research Inc. All rights reserved. MODE /Help or LPT#:[n][,[m][,[P][,s]]] or LPT#:=COMn or mode[,lines] or [mode],m[,T] or CON: [LINES=lines] [COLS=cols] [RATE=r DELAY=d] or COM#:b[,p][,d][,s][,P] or device CODEPAGE options LPT#:n,m,P Set-up printer #=Printer port number n=characters per line (80, 132) m=lines per inch (6 or 8) P=Continuous retry on timeout LPT#:=COMn Redirect printer port # output to serial port n mode,lines Set display mode 40 or BW40=40 columns no color (CGA) 80 or BW80=80 columns : CO40=40 columns color (CGA) CO80=80 columns : MONO=80 columns (MDA) lines=number of text rows: 25, 43 or 50 [mode],m[,T] Set display mode, mode parameter as described above m=CGA display shift direction: L or R T=show test pattern CON: LINES = lines lines=number of text rows: 25, 43 or 50 CON: COLS = cols cols=number of text columns: 40 or 80 CON: RATE = r DELAY = d r=keyboard typematic rate: 1..32 d=keyboard typematic delay: 1..4 COM#:b,p,d,s,P Set serial port #=serial port number b=baud rate - 110..19200 p=parity - Even, None or Odd d=data bits - 7 or 8 s=stop bits - 1 or 2 P=Continuous retry on timeout device CODEPAGE PREPARE=((cplist) [d:][path]filename[.ext]) device one of CON, PRN, LPT1, etc cplist one or more of 437, 850, 860, 863, 865 filename specifies the file containing the character shapes device CODEPAGE SELECT=cp device one of CON, PRN, LPT1, etc cp one of 437, 850, 860, 863, 865 device CODEPAGE REFRESH device one of CON, PRN, LPT1, etc device CODEPAGE /STATUS device one of CON, PRN, LPT1, etc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I could go on, but I think that this is enough of an advertisement. Re:DRDOS v5 and PC-NFS. Just before v5 was released, there was a great improvement in the support of communications/networking programs. You might give PC-NFS a try again with DR-DOS v5 and see how it fairs. -- John "Frotz" Fa'atuai frotz%drivax@uunet.uu.net (email@domain) Digital Research, Inc. {uunet|amdahl}!drivax!frotz (bang!email) c/o MIS Dept. (408) 647-6570 (vmail) 80 Garden Court, C13 (408) 649-3896 (phone) Monterey, CA 93940 (408) 649-0750 (fax) ========== "He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know." -- Lao Tzu
davidsen@antarctica.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) (07/24/90)
In article <1129@fang.dsto.oz>, hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes: |> The SID86 debugger is supplied. I consider this to be a much better low level |> debugger than DEBUG. It has PASS points which are ideal for debugging code |> which may branch or pass through a particular point many times. Sure, it is |> not a replacement for debuggers like CODEVIEW, but you don't need to be an |> expert in SID86 before you use it! I have to agree that when I used SID (CP/M-86 days) it was far better than DEBUG. Never having used codeview with an assembly program, I can't say if it is good, bad, or indifferent. It's nice for C code, and I haven't written any assembler in years. Nor do I intend to. -- Bill Davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com, uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386users mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is it's own reward" -me
hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) (07/25/90)
ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Timothy Takahashi) writes: >In article <1121@fang.dsto.oz> hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes: >>I have been running DR-DOS V3.41 for several months and have been very pleased >>with it. Sure, there are a few differences, but the only real problem has >>been its inability to work 100% with PC-NFS. >I've heard of Dr-DOS, but never actually seen anybody run it. What are the >"few differences?" Is it better/faster/smaller than MS-DOS? >Just curious, >tim I have had two computers running CR-DOS V3.41 since February. I was originally attracted to it because: (1) It was a cheap upgrade from MD-DOS V2.11 It cost only A$70 per copy (2) It was upgradable without the hassles of going back to the supplier (3) It provided >32Mb capability without having to be saddled with MS-DOS version 4.0 (4) It provided password protection I wrote a 4 page review for our local computer club (South Australian Micro- processor Group) and could put it on this board if interest is shown. That article goes through my experiences in installation, operation and evaluation. Briefly, in comparison to MS-DOS: It runs about 12% slower than MS-DOS V3.3 It will NOT run all networking packages. It is only "guaranteed" (if that is the right word) to run with Novell. I was told that this is because Novell represents 80% of the total PC networking environment, so Digital Research concentrated on that package first. I believe that this problem has been fixed in V5.0 DR-DOS takes longer to load at boot time Doing DEL *.* seems to take forever. This is because each file has to be checked for protection violation before deletion. When working down in a protected subdirectory, running a program which is in one of the PATH subdirectories makes you have to re-enter the password. The cure for that is to specify the path with the program name, or to use a global password. They are the bad points - now the good ones It takes less room (about 20K) than MS-DOS V3.31 and although it signs itself on as DR-DOS V3.41 at boot time, it identifies as DOS V3.31 with INT 21H/30h It handles partitions up to 512Mb It provides password protection of files to 3 levels (delete,write+delete or read+write+delete) and subdirectory protection. Passwords are appended to files or directories by using the format "filename;password" or may be prompted at the command line. There is no global protection right up to the root directory, but that has been included in the V5.0 release. I have not detected any other problems with running programs. The SID86 debugger is supplied. I consider this to be a much better low level debugger than DEBUG. It has PASS points which are ideal for debugging code which may branch or pass through a particular point many times. Sure, it is not a replacement for debuggers like CODEVIEW, but you don't need to be an expert in SID86 before you use it! Installation is a breeze - just follow the questions in the installation program. EDLIN is gone!!!!! A Word* non-document mode full screen type editor is provided with the package. etc., etc. ... There are 4 of us in our club running DR-DOS V3.41 and we are now awaiting the arrival of DR-DOS V5.0 - due in about 3 weeks here in OZ. V5.0 can put its OS up in extended/expanded RAM, giving a TPA of about 620K. It provides a shell a la MS-DOS V4 and gives root directory password protection as well. It also includes a file download program for transfers. Howie -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Harvey | I work at the speed of light Aeronautical Research Laboratory | But so does a snail!
hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) (07/25/90)
bianco@cs.odu.edu (David J. Bianco) writes: >Since DR-DOS allows 512MB partitions if you have the space, it's disk >structure is inherently non-standard (or at least, not what 3.x uses. >I dont know about DOS 4.x, since I dont have it). This gave TC++ > etc..... DR-DOS V3.41 is very similar to Compaq DOS V3.31, which was one of the first MS-DOS variants to introduce >32Mb partitions. In fact it identifies itself as DOS V3.31 when you do an INT 21H/fn 30H. Also, it will play havoc with any program that doesn't know how to handle the larger partitions. That is why programs like NORTONs had to be re-released for Compaq DOS and MS-DOS V4.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Harvey | I work at the speed of light Aeronautical Research Laboratory | But so does a snail! Defence Science and Technology Organisation +----------------------------- Salisbury, South Australia | Phone: +61 8 259 6322 | FAX: +61 8 259 5507 Note correct Email address ==> | Email: hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (07/26/90)
In article <10223@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1129@fang.dsto.oz>, hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes: >|> The SID86 debugger is supplied. I consider this to be a much better >low level >|> debugger than DEBUG. It has PASS points which are ideal for debugging code > I have to agree that when I used SID (CP/M-86 days) it was far better >than DEBUG. I used SID for CP/M-80. There is an "equivalent" MS-DOS program, symdeb, which came with the Microsoft Assembler before Codeview made its appearance. It was symbolic and had pass points just like SID. There are many cases where symdeb is superior to codeview or turbo debug (smaller, ability to ctty, oriented towards assembler code) and I use it far more often than the other debuggers, although I no longer use the Microsoft Assembler. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
marking@drivax.UUCP (M.Marking) (07/29/90)
hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes: ) ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Timothy Takahashi) writes: ) >I've heard of Dr-DOS, but never actually seen anybody run it. What are the ) >"few differences?" Is it better/faster/smaller than MS-DOS? First, a disclaimer. I work for Digital Research (Japan), Inc., whose parent company sells DR-DOS. My job doesn't involve DOS, except as a tool or as something to connect a network to. These views are unofficial, and not necessarily those of DRI, and all the usual... The recently-release DR-DOS 5.0 is quite different from the old version 3.41 as far as I can tell. I didn't use 3.41 much, since it was not compatible with some obscure stuff in my MKS tools, but the problems have been solved with 5.0. Now I'm hooked, and it is my system of choice. The comments that follow relate to 5.0. I am omitting features I haven't used or problems I don't know about directly. ) Briefly, in comparison to MS-DOS: ) It runs about 12% slower than MS-DOS V3.3 5.0 is has faster file i/o. I can't speak for the rest. It comes with an (optional) disk cache. ) It will NOT run all networking packages. It is only "guaranteed" (if that is ) the right word) to run with Novell. I was told that this is because Novell ) represents 80% of the total PC networking environment, so Digital Research ) concentrated on that package first. I believe that this problem has been ) fixed in V5.0 Yes, at the time of release, it ran all of the networks except for Lantastic, and a fix for Lantastic was (we were told) imminent. It also runs Windows 3.0. ) DR-DOS takes longer to load at boot time It seems to load faster than MS-DOS 3.3. ) It takes less room (about 20K) than MS-DOS V3.31 and although it signs itself ) on as DR-DOS V3.41 at boot time, it identifies as DOS V3.31 with INT 21H/30h ) It handles partitions up to 512Mb Enhanced with a vengeance. We have systems running in 20K of the 640K available, with the rest loaded into extended memory. Yes, CHKDSK shows 620K available. It will also look for available memory between 640K and 1MB+64K, and attempt to load the kernel there. Even the network drivers will load into high memory. ) Installation is a breeze - just follow the questions in the installation ) program. Installation is improved in 5.0. ) V5.0 can put its OS up in extended/expanded RAM, giving a TPA of about 620K. As above. This means almost all of the OS, including TSRs, buffers, drivers, and a lot of the kernel. ) It provides a shell a la MS-DOS V4 and gives root directory password protection ) as well. It also includes a file download program for transfers. The (optional) graphical shell looks kind of like GEM or Macintosh or whatever. It is IBM CUA compatible. The transfer program is a bit like a LapLink subset, but serial only. Most commands have "help" switches, so if you don't remember what option is used to format, say, a 360K disk on a 1.2 meg drive, it will tell you. It remembers a "command history" that extends the usual Fn3 key. You can step through previous commands (up to a user-specified limit, depending on how much buffer you want to use for that purpose) and edit them. It can also execute out of ROM. (This is not to be confused with the ability to be put into ROM and copied to RAM on powerup.) It has a power monitor feature that monitors activity and shuts down system components when not in use. We put this into laptops to save battery usage. It is OEM configurable, so I'm not sure that it comes with the standard retail release. It seems to be very portable. I have installed it out of the box on a variety of strange Japanese machines and it seems to work OK.
ganter@urz.unibas.ch (08/05/90)
In article <8502@ur-cc.UUCP>, ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Timothy Takahashi) writes: > In article <1121@fang.dsto.oz> hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes: >>I have been running DR-DOS V3.41 for several months and have been very pleased >>with it. Sure, there are a few differences, but the only real problem has >>been its inability to work 100% with PC-NFS. > > I've heard of Dr-DOS, but never actually seen anybody run it. What are the > "few differences?" Is it better/faster/smaller than MS-DOS? > > Just curious, > > tim DR-DOS is a 100% compatible OS to MS/PC-DOS (see above ...). It has some new featuers as password locking for files and directories, partitions >32M, help on commands (except of internal commands of course), command history and so on. But first You waste hours and hours to install it, until you accidentally boot the system with the DR-DOS diskette inserted (it works !!). Ok. I have compared it with 4dos, a shareware MS/PC-DOS shell. - First, if you boot with a MS/PC-DOS diskette later, all hard work installing passwords is useless (destroy Your floppy-drive, then it might work). - If you need partitions >32M use DOS 4.xx and 4dos as the shell (not the wonderfull (aaaaarghhh !) graphic shell). - 4dos has command history too, and help is made with a interactive, mouse driven help utility (expandable). - And, 4dos can be swapped to EMS/XMS, RAM-Disk or normal disk, when running a program, then only using about 4K of RAM ! - 4dos has a huge manual, DR-DOS -- I stop now, it's better. Use 4dos and enjoy life (available on some ftp sites, or if you don't succeed, e-mail to me and I send it to You) Robert
jwas@PacBell.COM (Joe Wasik) (08/06/90)
In article <1990Aug5.015536.859@urz.unibas.ch> ganter@urz.unibas.ch writes: >DR-DOS is a 100% compatible OS to MS/PC-DOS (see above ...). I use DR-DOS (i.e. Digital Research DOS), am happy with its features, but do not think the above statement is true. The OS Systems mentioned are not 100% compatible. There apparently are differences in the way they do I/O to floppies. When DR-DOS 3.41 and installing paradox 3.0, the installation procedure would only grab the first file on each floppy (there were 17 floppies), rather than copying all the files that it needed. According to Paradox support, they had seen problems before with DR-DOS. They recommended to install onto another MS-DOS system, then manually copy the configured paradox to Dr-DOS. I did, and it worked. Since then I have occsionally had other problems reading from floppies. Perhaps someone else knows exectly what was going on here. Please post to the net since many people are probably interested. -- Joe Wasik - PacBell, 2600 Camino Ramon, 4e750, San Ramon, CA 94583 415-823-2422 jwas@PacBell.COM or {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhyf!jwas "Consitution, ... Shmoshtitution" -- Jesse Helms (interpreted).
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (01/08/91)
Greg.Smith@p11.f477.n104.z1.METRONET.ORG (Greg Smith) <44.27804924@bohemia.metronet.org> : | | If you plan on using version 5.0, why not go ahead and get Dr-Dos 5.0. I am running it on my 20Mhz 286 and it works great. I highly recommend it. If not, go with 4.01, as you won't have to re-partition the disk when 5.0 comes. Hmmm... any (pointers to) information about or descriptions of Dr-Dos? I've never heard of the product.
Greg.Smith@p11.f477.n104.z1.METRONET.ORG (Greg Smith) (01/10/91)
In a message to All <08 Jan 91 00:50> Ramontante wrote:
Ra> From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Ra> | If you plan on using version 5.0, why not go ahead and get
Ra> | Dr-Dos 5.0. I am running it on my 20Mhz 286 and it works great.
Ra> | I highly recommend it. If not, go with 4.01, as you won't have
Ra> | to re-partition the disk when 5.0 comes.
Ra> Hmmm... any (pointers to) information about or descriptions of Dr-Dos?
Ra> I've never heard of the product.
It is put out by Digital Reasearch Inc. It is a os as is Ms or PC dos, and is fully compatible in every way I can think of. It has many more commands than Dos 3.3 or 4.01. It even lets you load 90% of it in high memory plus loading TSR's there. Look in your favorite software store, they're sure to know about it. I have 609k free for my programs and could have 620k free if that sounds good... :)
Greg
--- XRS! 4.00DV
* Origin: Reading this is pointless. (Quick 1:104/477.11)
--
=============================================================================
Greg Smith - via MetroNet node 200:5000/301
The Bohemia BBS System, Boulder Colorado (303)449-8946
UUCP: Greg.Smith@p11.f477.n104.z1.METRONET.ORG
or : ...!boulder!bohemia.METRONET.ORG!1!104!477.11!Greg.Smith
=============================================================================