echuang@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ernest Chuang) (06/13/91)
Simple question: Has anyone tried to use 4DOS with MS-DOS 5.0? Is it fully (or at all) compatible? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. - Ernest Chuang echuang@cory.berkeley.edu echuang@ocf.berkeley.edu
gettys@yacht.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys) (06/13/91)
I was speaking with the developer of 4DOS last night at a BCS meeting and he said that he expected to spend a LOT!! of time in the next few months telling people over and over that $DOS IS, repeate IS, fully compatible with MS-DOS V5. Based on that, I would say that it definitely is. There are a few improvements that he is planning to make that will take better advantage of some of the internal DOS 5 features, but I didn't get into a discussion of particulars. Note - that's better advantage - not just make it work. It works just fine already. /s/ Bob Gettys
bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) (06/13/91)
In article <23446@shlump.lkg.dec.com> gettys@yacht.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys) writes: > > I was speaking with the developer of 4DOS last night at a BCS meeting >and he said that he expected to spend a LOT!! of time in the next few months >telling people over and over that $DOS IS, repeate IS, fully compatible with >MS-DOS V5. Almost true. DOS 5.0 has a loadhigh internal command that 4dos version 3.03 does not support (since DOS 4.01 didn't have it). This is not a major problem if you use QEMM to load TSR's high. This is a problem if you don't have QEMM or 386^Max, or whatever. Also, from 4dos you can't run command.com, load the tsr high, and then exit back to 4dos :-( > > Based on that, I would say that it definitely is. There are a few >improvements that he is planning to make that will take better advantage of >some of the internal DOS 5 features, but I didn't get into a discussion of >particulars. Note - that's better advantage - not just make it work. It works >just fine already. > Yes, it works fine for me too, except for the loadhigh. I would definitely recommend using DOS 5.0, 4dos, and QEMM together. I get 633,000 bytes free using this combination. That plus DOS 5.0's command.com is still so stupid as to not have a move command, recogine *foo*.*, or have on-line help (yea, I know they tried, but DOS 5.0 help is pitiful compared to 4dos's). Again, 4dos is great! it's 99.9% compatible with DOS 5.0. But you'll have to wait to version 3.04 (or whatever) to get the loadhigh command. -- Scott Bostater Georgia Tech Research Institute - Radar Systems Analysis "My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from Him" -Ps 62.1 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!bb16 Internet: bb16@prism.gatech.edu
dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) (06/14/91)
Since:
- 4DOS is a command shell replacement replacement for command.com that
is superior in size (when not at the command prompt), online help,
Un*x-style wildcard expansion, aliases, and in providing a complete
and sane selection of commands (move, tee, inkey, pushd, popd, etc) ...
- QEMM-386 provides superior EMS/XMS/Loadhi and directly supports
Desqview for true multitasking ...
I have one question: Why did you upgrade to DOS 5.0? What do you gain
over DOS 3.3 (I refuse to consider DOS 4.x as an intermediate version ;-})?sitze@nmsu.edu (Richard Sitze) (06/14/91)
In article <31291@hydra.gatech.EDU> bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) writes: >Almost true. DOS 5.0 has a loadhigh internal command that 4dos version 3.03 >does not support (since DOS 4.01 didn't have it). This is not a major problem >if you use QEMM to load TSR's high. This is a problem if you don't have QEMM >or 386^Max, or whatever. >Also, from 4dos you can't run command.com, load the tsr high, and then exit >back to 4dos :-( funny, COMMAND.COM /C LOADHIGH MOUSE.COM in my autoexec.bat works just fine... Using QEMM 5.12, 4DOS & DOS 5.0. good luck, <ras> -- +-------------------------- | Richard A. Sitze | sitze@nmsu.edu, phone: (505) 646-6228 SH 163
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (06/14/91)
dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) writes: > I have one question: Why did you upgrade to DOS 5.0? What do you gain > over DOS 3.3 (I refuse to consider DOS 4.x as an intermediate version ;-})? I upgraded because I have a 120 megabyte disk. -- He cleaned the victims' apartment and then killed them.
news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU (Six o'clock News) (06/14/91)
>Yes, it works fine for me too, except for the loadhigh. I would definitely >recommend using DOS 5.0, 4dos, and QEMM together. I get 633,000 bytes free >using this combination. That plus DOS 5.0's command.com is still so stupid as >to not have a move command, recogine *foo*.*, or have on-line help (yea, I >know they tried, but DOS 5.0 help is pitiful compared to 4dos's). From: ggurman@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gail Gurman) Path: cory.Berkeley.EDU!ggurman I just installed DR DOS 5.0 which appears to be the same as MS DOS 5.0, including the problem of LOADHI not working with 4dos. However, there is an alternative to LOADHI, HIINSTALL which is a CONFIG.SYS command (presumably this is in MS DOS; I don't know). One other DR DOS 5.0/4DOS problem is that if I type "ver", 4dos tells me that I'm running DOS 3.3. If I type "command/c ver" to get DR DOS to tell me, it says "Incorrect DOS Version". Gail Send mail to: ggurman@cory.Berkeley.EDU
jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) (06/14/91)
dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) writes: > I have one question: Why did you upgrade to DOS 5.0? What do you gain > over DOS 3.3 (I refuse to consider DOS 4.x as an intermediate version ;-})? One answer: on my testbed machine, 46 KB additional memory below the 640K line without having to buy an additional software product. Joe
dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) (06/15/91)
jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes: >dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) writes: > >> I have one question: Why did you upgrade to DOS 5.0? What do you gain >> over DOS 3.3 (I refuse to consider DOS 4.x as an intermediate version ;-})? > >One answer: on my testbed machine, 46 KB additional memory below the 640K line >without having to buy an additional software product. How much free memory is that? I have 613k free at the (4)DOS prompt with PC-Cache (1.5 meg), VDISK (1.5 meg), pctools' mirror, keystack, a mouse driver, and nansi.sys loaded, files=40, environment space = 1000, and this using QEMM-386, 4dos, and DOS 3.3. I am not using the VGA memory, and when a program is launched, the 4DOS shell leaves only a small (.5k) loader resident, leaving my programs with almost the entire 640k space. Will DOS 5.0 add significantly to this total (+10k or more)? If not, then the only advantage I can see is the ability to create larger disk partitions, but I am quite content with several 32mb partitions. It just adds another level to the directory structure which I don't find the least bit bothersome.
rdippold@capri.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (06/16/91)
In article <1568@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) writes: > > Since: > > - 4DOS is a command shell replacement replacement for command.com that > is superior in size (when not at the command prompt), online help, > Un*x-style wildcard expansion, aliases, and in providing a complete > and sane selection of commands (move, tee, inkey, pushd, popd, etc) ... > > - QEMM-386 provides superior EMS/XMS/Loadhi and directly supports > Desqview for true multitasking ... > > I have one question: Why did you upgrade to DOS 5.0? What do you gain > over DOS 3.3 (I refuse to consider DOS 4.x as an intermediate version ;-})? Large volume support without funny partitioning. And I don't like 4dos. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) (06/16/91)
rdippold@capri.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >In article <1568@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dwebster@cs.arizona.edu (Dave E. Webster, Jr.) writes: >> >> I have one question: Why did you upgrade to DOS 5.0? What do you gain >> over DOS 3.3 (I refuse to consider DOS 4.x as an intermediate version ;-})? >Large volume support without funny partitioning. And I don't like 4dos. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yah, now there's a good reason. Pretty convincing argument there. Its actually much simpler. If none of the features in the press releases seem attractive, don't buy it. If you think you might like any or all of them, and you think 40 bucks is about right, buy it. If you don't think 40 bucks is worth it, borrow it from a friend, diddle with it, and decide if a spiffy new (faster format :) manual is worth it. Geez. It's just a stupid upgrade. What's all the fuss? I liked the beta; I'll probably go get the uprade sometime this summer. nye
seitz@netcom.COM (Matthew Seitz) (06/18/91)
In article <14097@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> ggurman@cory.Berkeley.EDUIn article <31291@hydra.gatech.EDU> bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) writes: writes: >I just installed DR DOS 5.0 which appears to be the same as MS DOS 5.0, DR DOS 5.0 is not the same as MS DOS 5.0. DR DOS is an operating system written by Digital Research as a compatible replacement for MS DOS. It came out a few months before MS DOS 5.0. It has many of the same features as MS-DOS 5.0. In fact, PC Magazine reported that some of the features of MS-DOS 5.0 were added in response to those features being included in DR DOS 5.0. While DR DOS has many similar features to MS DOS, and is designed to emulate MS DOS, it was written from scratch by a completely different team of programmers and has many internal differences from MS DOS. -- Matthew Seitz Note new address: seitz@netcom.com
frotz@dri.com (Frotz) (06/22/91)
news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU (Six o'clock News) writes:
]One other DR DOS 5.0/4DOS problem is that if I type "ver", 4dos tells me
]that I'm running DOS 3.3. If I type "command/c ver" to get DR DOS to
]tell me, it says "Incorrect DOS Version".
Just a quick comment about DRDOS 5.0. There are two ways that *DOS*
reports its version. 1) The VER command. 2) The interrupt 21
function (don't remember the subfunction, besides, that not important
right now).
1) The DRDOS 5.0 VER command reports the value of the environment
variable VER.
2) The DOS interrupt reports 3.3 to allow applications who are "picky"
to work. Now the MS has released a good idea with "setver," I suspect
we will adopt this method for changing this reporting mechanism soon.
--
John "Frotz" Fa'atuai frotz@dri.com (email@domain)
Digital Research, Inc. uunet!drivax!frotz (bang!email)
c/o MIS Dept. 408/647-6570 or 408/646-6287 (vmail)
80 Garden Court, CompRm 408/649-3896 (phone)
Monterey, CA 93940 408/646-6248 (fax)