wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) (08/18/90)
Should I be wary of MS-DOS 4.01? When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, 3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? I am currently running 3.30A on an 8-MHz 286 with two 32-meg disks, so I see no reason to change to 4.01 right now. I'm thinking more in terms of when I upgrade to newer, faster hardware sometime down the road; if a vendor offers me a package deal with 4.01, should I say "no, thanks, I'd rather have 3.3"? -- -- Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683 "You must not drink the tea. It is deadly to humans."
lupic@micasa.UUCP (Jack Lupic) (08/18/90)
wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: > Should I be wary of MS-DOS 4.01? > > When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first > came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that > one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, > 3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). > > Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? > > As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer > 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without > having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? I have been using Phoenix MS DOS 4.01 (essentially the same as Microsoft MS DOS 4.01) for a year now and it works great.The 99.9% of the bugs have been fixed in this version of Dec 89. MS/PC DOS 4.0 had many problems but that is now history. You don't really get much more with 4.01 except to be able to use single partition larger than 33Megs.Stick with MS DOS 3.3. Cheers, Jack Lupic Scarborough,Ont.,CAN. Internet: lupic%micasa@torag.UUCP OR lupic%micasa@contact.UUCP UUCP: !torag!micasa!lupic OR !contact!micasa!lupic = "The three most dangerous things in the world are: a programmer with a = = soldering iron, a hardware type with a program patch and a user with = = an idea."
mikey@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Michael GALLOP) (08/18/90)
In article <38144@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: >Should I be wary of MS-DOS 4.01? > >When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first >came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that >one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, >3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). > >Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? No, It isn't true anymore-- As far as far as I've seen. As usual it was released late and pushed out the door (Can anyone release software on time ? :-)). So there was bugs....The same reason I haven't bought Windows 3.0 yet- Now however it is stabilized... The original was, in fact 4.0 and a major bug fix was 4.01 > >As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer >4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without >having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? That is a big factor (I use a Wren V so...) the memory management for some strange reason is better... The memory mapping features are nice. I get fewer malloc errors with 4.01 then 3.30A. One caveat though. If you use an earlier version (like last year!) of SCO/Xenix your DOS partition is not recognized... I had a hell of a time with that one... >I am currently running 3.30A on an 8-MHz 286 with two 32-meg disks, so I >see no reason to change to 4.01 right now. I'm thinking more in terms >of when I upgrade to newer, faster hardware sometime down the road; if a >vendor offers me a package deal with 4.01, should I say "no, thanks, I'd >rather have 3.3"? Oh hell no. I orginally ran 4.00 on a 286-10 with a st251-1 and have no problems. When I upgraded to a 386-33 with a Wren V there were no problems from DOS. ---found out a few things about the AST VGA plus. These are just inane ramblings....There is a lot of white noise on the net recently, so I'm adding to it :-) -- | mikey@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca | "Life is just a linear Regression to Chaos," | | Mike Gallop | "...Poured through a Klein bottle" | | You think my profs know who I am to disclaim me?!?? | |"Stealing from one author is plagarism....Stealing from many is research" |
gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) (08/18/90)
If you have not updated to Dos 4.01 don't bother. Version 5 is in beta testing even as I type. There are all sorts of rumors about it. I even heard that it enters protected mode, had reentrant services, and more. NONE of this may be true, ALL of it may be true, OR (more likely) SOME of it is true. ciao jeff ps. I've been using DOS 4.00 for over a year, no real problems... None that dos caused anyway... -- Jeff Watkins gt3070b@prism.gatech.edu Convergent Media Systems (404) 315-0105 voice (404) 315-0231 data "I speak for no-one. AND NO-ONE SPEAKS FOR ME... oh, yes, _dear_...I gotta go..."
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (08/21/90)
Disclaimer: I do work at Microsoft, but I got all the information in this posting from the same places everyone else can, namely _PC Week_ and _Infoworld_. I do not work anywhere near the DOS folks and have no inside track on this information. The Story on DOS 4.01: DOS 4.0 had some bugs that caused people to lose data. DOS 4.01 is the major bug fix that cures those bugs. Many people don't like DOS 4.01 because it takes up too much memory -- it does take up much more than DOS 3.x versions. It does reliably handle disk partitions >32MB, and if you use DOS 4.01 instead of some third party solution you will be assured of the best compatibility with other Microsoft products like Windows. It also has some minor enhancements like a REM command for CONFIG.SYS, and a toy DOS shell (I have never heard of anyone who uses it). IBM ships DOS 4.01 under the name of PC-DOS 4.0; they did *not* change the name when they shipped the bug fix. If you want a disk partition >32MB, you must load SHARE.EXE each time you boot up or else risk losing data. (The people I have asked about NOSHARE.EXE, which is available on USENET, have all told me they think it is a bad idea. Use the real thing, SHARE.EXE.) Bottom line: if you want a large disk partition and you don't run huge programs and/or lots of TSRs (i.e. you don't mind the extra RAM requirements) feel free to run DOS 4.01. If DOS 3.x makes you happy, keep running it. The Story on DOS 5.00: In article <12725@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) writes: >If you have not updated to Dos 4.01 don't bother. Version 5 is in beta testing >even as I type. There are all sorts of rumors about it. I even heard that it >enters protected mode, had reentrant services, and more. > >NONE of this may be true, ALL of it may be true, OR (more likely) SOME of it >is true. Microsoft sells a protected mode OS with reentrant services. It is called OS/2, and it is very different from DOS. There are not any quick hacks that will make DOS a true multitasking OS. DOS 5 is in beta test, and it supports partitions >32MB without loading SHARE.EXE. (You will still want to load SHARE.EXE if you use Windows or other multitasking systems.) It can load some of itself into the HMA (High Memory Area) of extended memory if you have a 286 or above (and if you don't have something else that needs to load itself there). If it loads into HMA you get a *lot* of free memory in your 640k region; even if it doesn't load into HMA I believe it is smaller than DOS 4.01 is. It comes with a new version of BASIC that is a lot like Quick BASIC; it is called QBASIC and it replaces GW BASIC. It comes with a new editor, EDIT.COM, that is a lot like the Quick BASIC editor. It comes with a File Manager that looks a lot like the Windows File Manager. The _PC Week_ article said that the final version of DOS 5.00, when it ships, may have task-switching features. These would not provide multitasking, but would allow you to switch from program to program without exiting and restarting the programs. Presumably this feature would require expanded or extended memory. The bottom line: everyone will want to upgrade to DOS 5.00, since it will not cost more RAM than 3.x versions and it has more functionality than the 3.x versions. The cautious people may decide to wait for 5.01, or at least wait a month after the release of 5.00. But remember that there is a massive beta testing campaign going on; I suspect Microsoft doesn't want to embarrass itself with a version as buggy as DOS 4.00 was. The Rumor about DOS 4.01 and DOS 5.00: (I cannot confirm this rumor, but I like it. It's so... dramatic. :-) IBM engineers did DOS 4.00 and Microsoft engineers were embarrassed to have the Microsoft name associated with such a product. They are determined that DOS 5.00 will be lean, mean, and bug-free. It is a matter of honor now! -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
teittinen@cc.helsinki.fi (08/21/90)
In article <38144@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: > When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first > came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that > one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, > 3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). > > Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? As far as I know (and I've been using 4.01 for a looong time now) there are no more bugs in 4.01 than any other version of DOS. At the moment I can't remember any that would have come across, though I found some of the 4.0 bugs. > As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer > 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without > having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? I myself prefer 4.01 to 3.3. I currently don't use large partitions either, but there are many added handy options to many familiar DOS commands. And the GRAPHICS.COM can print EGA and VGA graphics screens too. And the new MEM-program that shows all kinds of data about the memory usage is very handy too. And I've possibly forgot to mention some nice features that I use so often that I can't even think thay havn't been there all the time. The truth is, that whenever I have to do anything with earlier DOS-version than 4, I notice within 10 minutes that one or another feature is missing. The only drawback of 4.01 is that it requires a bit more memory than 3.3 (especially if you accept AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS created by the installation program), but you can free memory by using MEM and modifying AUTOEXEC and CONFIG. This is just my opinion. 4.01 haters, don't bother to flame. -- E-Mail: teittinen@finuh.bitnet ! teittinen@cc.helsinki.fi ! UNIX is a four-letter word Marko Teittinen, student of computer science !
scotte@locus.com (Scott Eberline) (08/21/90)
In article <56756@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >IBM ships DOS 4.01 under the name of PC-DOS 4.0; they did *not* change the >name when they shipped the bug fix. I've got a Phoenix version labelled MSDOS 4.01, but the VER command prints out "4.00". Is this expected? >If you want a disk partition >32MB, you must load SHARE.EXE each time you >boot up or else risk losing data. ... Does this get loaded automatically somehow? If I boot without any config.sys or autoexec.bat, DOS spits out a message recommending SHARE for large parti- tions. But with my normal startup files that do not include SHARE, the MEM command indicates that SHARE is resident. What gives? -- Scott D. Eberline scotte@locus.com or uunet!lcc!scotte
ralphs@halcyon.wa.com (Ralph Sims) (08/21/90)
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: [things about DOS 4.x deleted] > If you want a disk partition >32MB, you must load SHARE.EXE each time you > boot up or else risk losing data. (The people I have asked about > NOSHARE.EXE, which is available on USENET, have all told me they think it > is a bad idea. Use the real thing, SHARE.EXE.) > Bottom line: if you want a large disk partition and you don't run huge > programs and/or lots of TSRs (i.e. you don't mind the extra RAM > requirements) feel free to run DOS 4.01. If DOS 3.x makes you happy, keep > running it. If you don't want to hassle with 4.x, try COMPAQ DOS 3.31, >32meg partitions, no SHARE, etc. needs to be loaded, works with Windows, takes less memory. That's why there's different flavors of ice cream. > IBM engineers did DOS 4.00 and Microsoft engineers were embarrassed to have > the Microsoft name associated with such a product. They are determined > that DOS 5.00 will be lean, mean, and bug-free. It is a matter of honor > now! At last! :-) I've found COMPAQ DOS 3.31 and 4DOS 3.01 the best of all possible worlds, but then again, I don't have beaucoup memory to lose myself in. -- "Reality is for people who lack imagination."
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (08/21/90)
In article <56756@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >If you want a disk partition >32MB, you must load SHARE.EXE each time you >boot up or else risk losing data. (The people I have asked about >NOSHARE.EXE, which is available on USENET, have all told me they think it >is a bad idea. Use the real thing, SHARE.EXE.) Does anyone know exactly why SHARE.EXE is required for large partitions? And does it matter whether I load it from AUTOEXEC.BAT rather than CONFIG.SYS?? (I want to LOADHI it out of the way with QEMM). > >The Story on DOS 5.00: >... It can load some of itself into the HMA (High >Memory Area) of extended memory if you have a 286 or above (and if you > >... but would allow you to switch from program to program without >exiting and restarting the programs. Presumably this feature would require >expanded or extended memory. This sounds nice at first, but MOST IMPORTANTLY: Do these functions work under QEMM 5.0 ?? If not, I don't want it. -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!bmerh724!mlord | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | Ottawa, Ontario. 613-763-7482 | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
mcolan@lotus.com (Mark Colan) (08/21/90)
I went to DOS 4.01 primarily for large disk support. It also has a shell for the non-hacker which I don't use. A tiny feature I like is that the CONFIG.SYS now accepts (and ignores) REM lines for comments. Only bug I have found is that when you have both a VGA and mono card in your system (such as you might if you were doing 2-monitor debugging in OS/2 or Windows), the command "mode co80,nn" (where nn is 43, 50, etc) will no longer work: DOS says the function is not supported by this computer. If you remove the mono card, it successfully puts the monitor into 43-line or 50-line mode (which I prefer). A few questions for you others: 1. DOS complains that I should use SHARE with large media, yet seems to work fine without it. I can't find out why I should, what it buys me, etc. I DO have a large disk with one partition over 150MB. 2. Does anyone have a MODE program that allows me to change to 43 and 50 line mode but without destoying the cursor? I have a Sigma Legend VGA. Mark Colan
scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) (08/22/90)
In article <15834@oolong.la.locus.com>, scotte@locus.com (Scott Eberline) writes: > In article <56756@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: > >IBM ships DOS 4.01 under the name of PC-DOS 4.0; they did *not* change the > >name when they shipped the bug fix. > > I've got a Phoenix version labelled MSDOS 4.01, but the VER command prints > out "4.00". Is this expected? I don't think I'd describe it as "expected", but that is indeed how it works. The only reliable way of determining what version of DOS you have is by checking the dates on all the files -- neither the external nor internal version numbers are necessarily changed when fixes are made. For 4.01 they incremented the external version number but did not update the internal one. > >If you want a disk partition >32MB, you must load SHARE.EXE each time you > >boot up or else risk losing data. ... > > Does this get loaded automatically somehow? If I boot without any config.sys > or autoexec.bat, DOS spits out a message recommending SHARE for large parti- > tions. But with my normal startup files that do not include SHARE, the MEM > command indicates that SHARE is resident. What gives? If SHARE.EXE is in the root directory, DOS will load it automatically. If not, and you don't load it explicitly, it will print out an error message, but will continue to boot. ---- Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones SDRC scjones@thor.UUCP 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150-2789 AT&T: (513) 576-2070 See if we can sell Mom and Dad into slavery for a star cruiser. -- Calvin
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (08/22/90)
In article <38144@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: > As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer > 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without > having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? You can put your buffers into expanded memory with the /X switch. That will free up some low RAM depending on how many BUFFERS you have in your CONFIG.SYS. Of course, you MUST have an EMM loaded first to do it. My manual says that buffers take up 528 bytes each. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
markus@cernvax.UUCP (markus baertschi) (08/22/90)
In <1990Aug21.164046.19087@lotus.com> mcolan@lotus.com (Mark Colan) writes: >1. DOS complains that I should use SHARE with large media, yet seems to > work fine without it. I can't find out why I should, what it buys SHARE.EXE was originally provided for DOS LAN support where one of it's tasks were to map the old DOS 1.x FCB calls to the newer style calls. As the DOS 4 large disk support only works with the newer file calls DOS asks you to load SHARE.EXE to map the old calls to the new calls. So, if you don't run *very* old programs you don't need SHARE, but if you want to absolutely shure you'll have to pay the price (memory). Markus -- Markus Baertschi | markus@cernvm.cern.ch CERN (European Particle Research Center) Geneva, Switzerland
TOMIII@MTUS5.BITNET (Thomas Dwyer III) (08/22/90)
>If SHARE.EXE is in the root directory, DOS will load it automatically. >If not, and you don't load it explicitly, it will print out an error >message, but will continue to boot. My manual says if SHARE.EXE is in the same place pointed to by COMSPEC, (the SHELL= line in CONFIG.SYS) it will be loaded automatically. Thomas Dwyer III TOMIII @ MTUS5.BITNET Network Programmer DWYERIII @ MTUS5.BITNET Computing Technology Services Michigan Technological University
buck@granite.cr.bull.com (Kenneth J. Buck) (08/22/90)
In article <2209@cernvax.UUCP> markus@cernvax.UUCP (markus baertschi) writes: > So, if you don't run *very* old programs you don't need SHARE, but if > you want to absolutely shure you'll have to pay the price (memory). Fine, but what's *real* the penalty for NOT using SHARE? Will the "old" programs just fail, or is there risk of disk corruption, other_bad_things, etc.?
grantk@manta.NOSC.MIL (Kelly J. Grant) (08/22/90)
In article <56756@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP writes: > >If you want a disk partition >32MB, you must load SHARE.EXE each time you >boot up or else risk losing data. (The people I have asked about >NOSHARE.EXE, which is available on USENET, have all told me they think it >is a bad idea. Use the real thing, SHARE.EXE.) > >Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: >uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==| Nice enterprise :-) We are supporting a large Clipper application used at a Naval laboratory here that runs on hundreds of PC's successfully. We have been dealing with DOS 4.01 for some time now, and even Nantuckett admits that Clipper applications will have a difficult time with certain DOS 4 systems. We have found that the application works well *IF* we remove the SHARE.EXE command. (On an interesting note, one of our field people said that even if you don't load SHARE explicitly, it shows up in memory or device driver chains. Can this be true ?) The machines seem to run properly without the SHARE command loaded. Are we treading on thin ice here ? Has anyone been successful at running Clipper programs in DOS 4 ? I'd appreciate any information. Thanks, Kelly -- Kelly Grant grantk@manta.nosc.mil (619) 225-8401 Computer Sciences Corp ^^^^^^^^ Important: manta.UUCP won't get to me 4045 Hancock Street "If you are given lemons.....see if you can trade for San Diego, CA 92110 chocolate" - me
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (08/23/90)
markus@cernvax.UUCP (markus baertschi) writes: > SHARE.EXE was originally provided for DOS LAN support where one of it's > tasks were to map the old DOS 1.x FCB calls to the newer style calls. > As the DOS 4 large disk support only works with the newer file calls > DOS asks you to load SHARE.EXE to map the old calls to the new calls. > So, if you don't run *very* old programs you don't need SHARE, but if > you want to absolutely shure you'll have to pay the price (memory). It would be nice if there was a small TSR that would display a message if a "*very* old program" tried a DOS 1.x FCB call. That way I could run with it for a while to see if it would be a problem on my system. It would be even better if SHARE did it. I really hate SHARE. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
mk@vall.dsv.su.se (Magnus Karlson) (08/23/90)
What happens if you set FCBS to 0 in config.sys? I don't use a 4.xx system my self so i don't know, but at least logicaly it should make old fcb programs fail. I have 1 document about PC-Dos 4.00 from when it was new that says "a fcb call to disk larger than 32MB will fail if share is not loaded" though it doesn't say in what way it will fail... Magnus Karlson mk@vall
scotte@locus.com (Scott Eberline) (08/23/90)
In article <135@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >If SHARE.EXE is in the root directory, DOS will load it automatically. >If not, and you don't load it explicitly, it will print out an error >message, but will continue to boot. In that case, I suspect it checks the directory pointed to by SHELL or COMSPEC also. I keep both COMMAND.COM and SHARE.EXE in C:/DOS. -- Scott D. Eberline scotte@locus.com or uunet!lcc!scotte
hchen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (H. Chen) (08/23/90)
When DOS 4.0 came out, I tried to run some CD-ROM product with or without DOS Extention. It didn't work. Then I was told that DOS 4.0 won't support CD-ROM. It is no problem with DOS 3.3 for all CD-ROM products we have. Now, I was told that DOS 4.01 doesn't support CD-ROM too. Since we wasted money with DOS 4.0, we didn't upgrade to DOS 4.01. Are there any people has the first-hand experience, especially with Silver Platter, OCLC, and UMI's products. Thank you. Huijie (hchen@silver.ucs.indiana.edu)
scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) (08/23/90)
In article <2209@cernvax.UUCP>, markus@cernvax.UUCP (markus baertschi) writes: > DOS asks you to load SHARE.EXE to map the old calls to the new calls. > So, if you don't run *very* old programs you don't need SHARE, but if > you want to absolutely shure you'll have to pay the price (memory). There are some things that the old FCB functions do MUCH more efficiently that the new file handle calls do, so some NEW programs still use them. ---- Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones SDRC scjones@thor.UUCP 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150-2789 AT&T: (513) 576-2070 I hate being good. -- Calvin
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (08/23/90)
mk@vall.dsv.su.se (Magnus Karlson) writes: >What happens if you set FCBS to 0 in config.sys? I don't use a 4.xx system >my self so i don't know, but at least logicaly it should make old fcb programs >fail. My DOS 4.01 manual says that the allowable range for FCBs is 1-255, so I guess this won't work. Haven't tried it though. Given that I know very little about the internal workings of DOS, my understanding was that the problem is with DOS 1.x FCB calls. I assume DOS 4 uses DOS 4.x FCB calls now, so you really couldn't set the number of FCBs to zero. Of course this is pure speculation about something that I know very little about. Any experts out there to help us out? Does DOS 4.x not use FCBs? Is that how they got around the 32MB limit? >I have 1 document about PC-Dos 4.00 from when it was new that says >"a fcb call to disk larger than 32MB will fail if share is not loaded" >though it doesn't say in what way it will fail... I heard that it could trash your disk, but I've never had it verified by an independent source. Laying my ignorance out on the table... Marshall -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
marks@pwa-b.uucp (Evan R. Marks) (08/24/90)
I am cureently using a CD-ROM drive with ms dos 4.01 and using
microsoft cd-rom extensions version 2.10. No problems here.
--
Evan R. Marks Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
Sr. Systems Support Analyst 400 Main St. M/S 161-05
Sun Workstation Support East Hartford, CT 06108
{philabs,utah-gr}!pwa-b!marks (203) 565-5444rschmidt@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (roy schmidt) (08/26/90)
In article <1990Aug22.153913.3961@granite.cr.bull.com> buck@granite.cr.bull.com (Kenneth J. Buck) writes: >In article <2209@cernvax.UUCP> markus@cernvax.UUCP (markus baertschi) writes: >> So, if you don't run *very* old programs you don't need SHARE, but if >> you want to absolutely shure you'll have to pay the price (memory). > >Fine, but what's *real* the penalty for NOT using SHARE? Will the "old" >programs just fail, or is there risk of disk corruption, other_bad_things, etc.? The point is, for "old" (and some "new") programs that use FCBs instead of file handles, you risk scrambling the data files written by the application in question, and possibly overwriting other files. SHARE is there to help the FCB method find the correct area of the extended disk on which to write. The price (15K of RAM) is not particularly high. If you find it a squeeze, take a look at the *low* cost of 1Mbit chips these days.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Schmidt | #include <disclaimer.h> Indiana University | /* They are _my_ thoughts, and you can't Graduate School of Business | have them, so there! */
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (08/28/90)
In article <136@thor.UUCP>, scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) wrote: }There are some things that the old FCB functions do MUCH more }efficiently that the new file handle calls do, so some NEW }programs still use them. Yes, mass deletes and renames are done in a single pass through the directory with the FCB calls, while they require a directory search to find all affected files and a separate call (involving its own directory search) to do the rename or delete for each found file. HOWEVER, there is a way to enable wildcards on path rename/delete. If you invoke INT 21/AH=41h or AH=56h via the server call (INT 21/AX=5D00h), a wildcard rename/move or delete is possible using canonicalized filenames returned by INT 21/AH=60h. The delete will need only a single pass through the directory; similarly for a rename to the same directory. You can also move multiple files to another directory, optionally renaming while moving. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=- 412-268-3053 (school) -=- FAX: ask ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: 1:129/3.1 Disclaimer? | I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. What's that? | I said I didn't know. --Mark Twain
schwalbe@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Jim Schwalbe) (08/29/90)
I have seen an advertisement for DOS 3.31 which claims to break the 32
Megabyte restriction. If this is true (can anyone verify this?) then
what's the difference between 3.31 and 4.01? It seems strange to me that
they would make a major change like that and only bump the rev from
3.30A to 3.31.
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
: Jim Schwalbe .----------------. "Half of what I say is :
: Hardware Research Group .--+-------------. | meaningless; but I say it :
: Encore Computer Corp. | | E N C O R E | | so that the other half may :
: Mail: {bu-cs,talcott} | `-------------+--' reach you." :
: !encore!schwalbe `----------------' - Kahil Gibran :
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'RFM@psuvm.psu.edu (08/29/90)
To my knowledge bith the Zenith version of DOS 3.31 and the Compaq version 3.31 support partitions greater than 32 megs. Zenith does, I know for sure. I'm running two 65-meg drives as large partitions (drives C & D) under Zenith 3.3Plus. Bob M., PSU-Harisburg
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (08/30/90)
In article <marshall.651350110@wind55> marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) writes: >markus@cernvax.UUCP (markus baertschi) writes: > >> SHARE.EXE was originally provided for DOS LAN support where one of it's >> tasks were to map the old DOS 1.x FCB calls to the newer style calls. >> As the DOS 4 large disk support only works with the newer file calls >> DOS asks you to load SHARE.EXE to map the old calls to the new calls. >> So, if you don't run *very* old programs you don't need SHARE, but if >> you want to absolutely shure you'll have to pay the price (memory). > >It would be nice if there was a small TSR that would display a message >if a "*very* old program" tried a DOS 1.x FCB call. That way I could >run with it for a while to see if it would be a problem on my system. >It would be even better if SHARE did it. I can't keep out of this any longer. And here it is. The much malligned (even by me) TSR, NOSHARE.COM! This program does nothing SHARE does, but then it is much smaller. It simply causes the DOS 1.x FCB calls to fail gracefully. You can't run DOS 1.x applications, but then they can't harm the system either! Use at your own risk (and as was posted by a Microsoft employee, use of NOSHARE is not recommended, but what do they know? :-) I should point out that I wrote NOSHARE, but then again, maybe I should keep it a secret. section 1 of uuencode 3.16 of file noshare.com by R.E.M. begin 644 noshare.com MZ0@`]`$`````"@"\FA_'!@4!F!^]_A^)+@<!_.@Z`+@`3,TA`````(#\#W0*` M@/P6=`4N_RZ``+#_SUY86EL>CMNT)<TA'__FM#7-(8G8C,/#N@H`N``QS2'H> M2@`'3D]32$%21>A1`.@\``M">2!4;VT@06QM>>@_`+@A`.C)_Z,D`8D>)@&ZB M)`%2NH``4KH6`%+H40",R%"ZA`!2NB$`4NB7_^FK_UN*!S#D0U-0`<-86E.)= MT^DA`+@-`.@)`+@*`.D#``$``*+&`;1`N0$`NL8!BQ[$`<TAPXG!B=J+'L0!; 3M$#-(<-;65]>XP:,V([`\Z3_XZ3_F `` end sum -r/size 53542/375 section (from "begin" to "end") sum -r/size 4841/244 entire input file >I really hate SHARE. Me too. I want it all for myself! Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug21.164046.19087@lotus.com> mcolan@lotus.com (Mark Colan) writes: > I went to DOS 4.01 primarily for large disk support. It also has a > shell for the non-hacker which I don't use. A tiny feature I like is > that the CONFIG.SYS now accepts (and ignores) REM lines for comments. I like this feature of 4.01 also!!! > A few questions for you others: > > 1. DOS complains that I should use SHARE with large media, yet seems to > work fine without it. I can't find out why I should, what it buys > me, etc. I DO have a large disk with one partition over 150MB. The only reason I install share is so I don't run into myself when trying to ascces the same file while I'm in DesqView 386. I am aware of some kind of file size limatation that it corrects with software that expects a hard disk to be no larger than 32Meg. -- Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(201)882-3100 Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07201 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm "... No matter where you go, there you are ..."
pilger@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Eric Pilger) (09/04/90)
In article <3952@bwdls58.UUCP> mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes: >Does anyone know exactly why SHARE.EXE is required for large partitions? >And does it matter whether I load it from AUTOEXEC.BAT rather than CONFIG.SYS?? >(I want to LOADHI it out of the way with QEMM). I don't know a thing about share.exe, having used Compaq DOS 3.31 for the past 2 1/2 years. However, did you know you can load things high in your config.sys? An example would be: device=c:\etc\qemm\loadhi.sys c:\dos\share.exe Or the equivalent on your machine. Eric Pilger NASA Infrared Telescope Facility