msmith@proton.tricity.wsu.edu (Mark Smith) (06/05/91)
Ok I've heard all the stuff about 5.0 coming out in June. The question is "What are the features like? Does it have any new features at all?" Can I use 8 Meg directly with it? Can I quit using EMM? Will it multitask? If you can, please either email me the answers to these questions or point me to a magazine article that will, or, hasn't it been reviewd in the mags yet? msmith@att3b2.tricity.wsu.edu
orenalex@bimacs.BITNET (oren alex) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun5.013944.15998@serval.net.wsu.edu> msmith@proton.tricity.wsu.edu (Mark Smith) writes: >Ok I've heard all the stuff about 5.0 coming out in June. > >The question is "What are the features like? Does it have any new features >at all?" > >Can I use 8 Meg directly with it? > >Can I quit using EMM? > >Will it multitask? > Jesus, when will the netpeople stop asking those questions??? Read the title, it says "DOS 5.0" ^^^ That means: 640K barrier (but EMS/XMS supported; leaves ~630K free), EMM still needed (included in the package), No multitasking (maybe DPMI support, not sure...) What you really want is OS/2 or a UNIX variant. Version 5.0 is not the answer to the prayers of furstrated DOS users, but it's an improvement over previous versions. I have a copy installed, if you like more info - email me (Serious questions only, please!). Arivederci, Alex
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) (06/06/91)
orenalex@bimacs.BITNET (oren alex) writes: >Jesus, when will the netpeople stop asking those questions??? >Read the title, it says "DOS 5.0" > ^^^ >That means: 640K barrier (but EMS/XMS supported; leaves ~630K free), > EMM still needed (included in the package), > No multitasking (maybe DPMI support, not sure...) > >What you really want is OS/2 or a UNIX variant. > >Version 5.0 is not the answer to the prayers of furstrated DOS users, >but it's an improvement over previous versions. >I have a copy installed, if you like more info - email me (Serious >questions only, please!). I agree it is too much to expect MS to merely upgrade a product to such high levels of performance, but I disagree that it is necessary to go to such extremes as OS/2 and UNIX, where things all work differently, just to get a few of the basics that should have been in DOS 1.0 from day 1 had the programmers been given the freedom to, and had the willingness to "do it right". -- /***************************************************************************\ / Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Guns don't aim guns at \ \ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks | people; CRIMINALS do!! / \***************************************************************************/
rhoward@msd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) (06/06/91)
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes: >I agree it is too much to expect MS to merely upgrade a product to such >high levels of performance, but I disagree that it is necessary to go >to such extremes as OS/2 and UNIX, where things all work differently, >just to get a few of the basics that should have been in DOS 1.0 from >day 1 had the programmers been given the freedom to, and had the >willingness to "do it right". I think you need to think of this in its historical context. First, the 8088 could only address 1 MB of memory so DOS had to fit in there. Second, when "they" gave users 640K, most thought "Are you mad? What will you do with all that RAM?" Remember, at that time a 128K Apple was hot stuff... Now, perhaps something should/could have been done somewhere about DOS versions 2 or 3.... Robert -- | Robert L. Howard | Georgia Tech Research Institute | | rhoward@msd.gatech.edu | MATD Laboratory | | (404) 528-7165 | Atlanta, Georgia 30332 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "Reality is showing us that perhaps we should do with nuclear | | power the same thing Keloggs is advocating for Corn Flakes - | | Discover it again for the first time." -- John De Armond |
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun5.210939.9290@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) wrote: }orenalex@bimacs.BITNET (oren alex) writes: }just to get a few of the basics that should have been in DOS 1.0 from }day 1 had the programmers been given the freedom to, and had the }willingness to "do it right". Please keep in mind that design goals have changed over the past decade. MSDOS 1.0 was meant to be a CP/M clone, and HAD to run in 48K, with enough left over for user programs! When was the last time you ran a DOS version in which the kernel and shell totaled less than 48K? (hint: they haven't since DOS 3.0; DOS 2.1 weighed in at 40K, DOS 1.x at a mere 18K) -- 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? | Plausible impossibilities should be preferred to What's that? | unconvincing possibilities. -- Aristotle, Poetics 24 -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/53 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? Did | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's I claim something?| what we know that ain't so. --Will Rogers
eric@cs.fau.edu (Eric Thav) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun5.013944.15998@serval.net.wsu.edu> msmith@proton.tricity.wsu.edu (Mark Smith) writes: >Ok I've heard all the stuff about 5.0 coming out in June. Since its June already, we can start by saying Wednesday is the release date, June 12th. >The question is "What are the features like? Does it have any new features >at all?" Yes, it does. It has online help for all of the commands (available by typing HELP DIR or DIR /?), on 286/386/+ systems, DOS 5.0 will now be able to stuff most of its kernal into either the HMA (High Memory Area - made available by HIMEM.SYS or an appropriate memory manager) or into the UMB (Upper Memory Block a/k/a "high memory" - available, again, with an appropriate memory manager or the included EMM386.SYS memory manager), DOS 5.0 will also allow you to load memory-resident programs into high memory with the LOADHIGH command, or device drivers with the DEVICEHIGH= command, BASICA has been replaced with the new QBASIC interpreter which is essentially the Microsoft QuickBASIC compiler with out the compiling functions, EDLIN has been made obsolete (though it is still included, unlike BASICA) with the new Microsoft Editor (which is essentially QBASIC called with the /EDIT parameter - which really just leaves out the programming stuff), for programs that require specific (read: older) versions of DOS, there is a new SETVER command that allows you to fool the program into thinking it is that version of DOS (e.g., SETVER NET3.EXE 3.3 will fool a network driver into thinking it is running under DOS 3.3. NOTE: NET5.EXE is included with DOS 5.0 along with the DOS 5.0 REDIRector). The DOS Shell has been revamped into something quite usable, though still not along the lines of PC Shell or Norton Commander, and the DOS Shell now has a task switcher so that you can run multiple applications AT THE SAME TIME, though each application is in a paused state when you switch to one another. Included with DOS 5.0 are several utilities licensed from Central Point Software. MIRROR, REBUILD, and UNDELETE are those utilities, and I believe the FORMAT program is written by Microsoft, but works with those utilities, I do not believe that it is Central Point's PCFORMAT program, though I could be wrong. >Can I use 8 Meg directly with it? You could use 8 megs directly with DOS 3.3, but not as CONVENTIONAL MEMORY, and no you can't use it as conventional memory with DOS 5.0 either, try OS/2 instead. DOS 5.0, though, (as mentioned above) includes its own memory manager, EMM386.SYS, which allows for the use of the LOADHIGH and DEVICEHIGH= commands, but QEMM and 386^MAX are not obsoleted by this, trust me. >Can I quit using EMM? Which EMM are you using? A hardware specific one or something like QEMM? If you are using QEMM or 386^MAX, you may want to continue using them, even though the included EMM386.SYS will function quite nicely. >Will it multitask? Task switch, yes, multi-task no. Try Microsoft Windows 3.0 or OS/2. DOS 5.0 is not intended to replace either one and is only to supplement Windows. As stated at the top, wait until after Wednesday (check your Wednesday newspaper business section or wait until Thursday) and you'll hear nothing but DOS 5.0 for weeks. -- .signature not found, format hard disk instead? (Y/N)_ Eric L. Thav Florida Atlantic University - Boca Raton, FL INTERNET: eric@acc.fau.edu GEnie: E.THAV | PRODIGY: Lots of ads BITNET: eric@fauvax PRODIGY: NMVG80A | and we read your mail!