todd@pinhead.pegasus.com (Todd Ogasawara) (06/12/91)
Does anyone have any advice on how to best install MS-DOS 5.0 and QEMM-386 5.12 together? In specific: 1. Is it safe to set DOS=HIGH,UMB in CONFIG.SYS when using QEMM instead of DOS 5.0's HIMEM.SYS? 2. Is it safe to use QEMM's LOADHI instead of DOS' high memory loaders? 3. Does DOSKEY have any problems with QEMM? So far, I've played it cautious and have only installed DOS 5.0 on an old 286 box that isn't needed for anything critical. Everything seems to run fine on the 286 (even with OnTrack in use). However, I have yet to load DOS 5.0 on my 386 with QEMM (currently running MS-DOS 4.01). If anyone has any experience running MS-DOS 5.0 on a Gateway 2000 386/33 with QEMM-386, I'd appreciate hearing from you. -- Todd Ogasawara ::: Hawaii Medical Service Association Internet ::: todd@pinhead.pegasus.com Telephone ::: (808) 536-9162 ext. 7
bparekh@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Behram Parekh) (06/12/91)
I'm currently running DOS 5.0 with QEMM-386 with no problems.
Don't use the DOS loadhigh, use Qemm's loadhi. Putting DOS
in High mem works fine. I haven't noticed any conflicts at all.
--
Behram Parekh bparekh@ics.uci.edu
Disclaimer: UCI ICS has no idea what I'm talking about, but then
neither do I.sitze@nmsu.edu (Richard Sitze) (06/12/91)
>Does anyone have any advice on how to best install MS-DOS 5.0 and >QEMM-386 5.12 together? In specific: I've had no problems... > >1. Is it safe to set DOS=HIGH,UMB in CONFIG.SYS when using QEMM instead > of DOS 5.0's HIMEM.SYS? yes >2. Is it safe to use QEMM's LOADHI instead of DOS' high memory loaders? I'm using DOS devicehigh=, as opposed to QEMM's. Haven't even tried LOADHI because I assume(d) that LOADHI will take some small minute portion of memory to do it's work... It appeared to do that under DOS 4.01. Someone else just posted something that says we shouldn't use DOS devicehigh, but didn't give an explanation - I've experience no problems (and I've been using it all day... not much perhaps, but heavy use). >3. Does DOSKEY have any problems with QEMM? Haven't tried it, use 4DOS (which actually uses more memory than COMMAND.COM!!!) because I'm use to it's methods, and prefer some of its features. I must admit I'm not familiar with DOSKEY other than it's existance. > >So far, I've played it cautious and have only installed DOS 5.0 on an >old 286 box that isn't needed for anything critical. Everything seems to >run fine on the 286 (even with OnTrack in use). However, I have yet to >load DOS 5.0 on my 386 with QEMM (currently running MS-DOS 4.01). > >If anyone has any experience running MS-DOS 5.0 on a Gateway 2000 386/33 >with QEMM-386, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Northgate 386/33 (Elegance ?) works great !!!! I'm a satisfied customer.. so far. -- +-------------------------- | Richard A. Sitze | sitze@nmsu.edu, phone: (505) 646-6228 SH 163
bchen@wpi.WPI.EDU (Bi Chen) (06/13/91)
This is a novice question: I current use DOS v4.01 with QEMM386 v5.11 and Windows v3.0 and have not counter any problem so far. I wonder if I should upgrade to DOS v5.0. Apart from the loading high of part of DOS, you folks still use LOADHI in QEMM386 rather than that offered by DOS v5.0, what is the advantage of DOS v5.0? Is it only becuase it has less bugs? Thank's Bi
todd@pinhead.pegasus.com (Todd Ogasawara) (06/15/91)
In article <BCHEN.91Jun13090414@wpi.WPI.EDU> bchen@wpi.WPI.EDU (Bi Chen) writes: > I current use DOS v4.01 with QEMM386 v5.11 and Windows v3.0 >and have not counter any problem so far. I wonder if I should upgrade >to DOS v5.0. Apart from the loading high of part of DOS, you folks >still use LOADHI in QEMM386 rather than that offered by DOS v5.0, >what is the advantage of DOS v5.0? Is it only becuase it has less >bugs? Having only used DOS 5.0 for a few days now, I think there are several advantages it has over its predecessors. 1. efficient memory usage on 286 and 386 boxes with at least 1M RAM 2. installation "awareness" of third party programs (OnTrack, QEMM, etc.) 3. network "awareness" 4. elimination of the need for SHARE with large disk partitions 5. standardizing on PC Tools' FORMAT, UNFORMAT, UNDELETE, and MIRROR (as others pointed out to me :-) 6. DOS help availability for all built in commands and supplied utilities. (Can't remember all the FORMAT options? Just type 'format /?') 7. replacing GWBASIC with a variant of QuickBASIC (interpreter only, no compiler like with QB 4.5). 8. Supplying a real full screen editor (which is really QBASIC called with into a different configuration) 9. Smartening up DIR (finally!) so it can sort directories, etc. (Heck, DIR is almost as useful as UNIX' ls now). 10. And (maybe) the support of 2.88MB 3.5" drives is interesting. Too bad the drives and media are not cost effective yet. From the top of my head, those are just some of the things I've found interesting about 5.0. -- Todd Ogasawara ::: Hawaii Medical Service Association Internet ::: todd@pinhead.pegasus.com Telephone ::: (808) 536-9162 ext. 7