nbeck@weber.ucsd.edu (Nathaniel Beck) (05/15/91)
I am getting a new 486 and Gateway will install either Dos 3.3 or 4.01 at my option. With an 80M HD it would be nice to avoid having C, D and E drives using Dos 4.01. But I remember that a while ago people shied away from 4.01 because it was reputed to be buggy. Is this still the case, and should I stick with tried and true 3.3? Thanks in advance Neal -- Neal Beck Dept of Politcal Science, UCSD beck@ucsd.edu Dislaimer: The Regents pay me (a bit!) to distribute my opinions.
unicorn@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Harry E Miller) (05/15/91)
nbeck@weber.ucsd.edu (Nathaniel Beck) writes: >I am getting a new 486 and Gateway will install either Dos 3.3 or >4.01 at my option. With an 80M HD it would be nice to avoid having >C, D and E drives using Dos 4.01. But I remember that a while ago >people shied away from 4.01 because it was reputed to be buggy. Is >this still the case, and should I stick with tried and true 3.3? I'm not completely sure about this, but here is my 1.5 cents worth. MSDOS 4.00 was buggy, but was corrected with 4.01, which is suppose to work fine. IBM's version of DOS 4.00 works just fine, because they put it out after MicroSoft 4.00 was reported to be buggy (or just crap!). I use IBM DOS 4.00 and have no problems or qualms at all. (A little side comment you can ignore) It seems strange that MS cannot produce products that are at least fairly bug-free. What do they do, ignore their beta users! Also even though I know that speed is not everything, it should at least mean something! They only MS products I find userfull is MS Word 5.0 and MS EXCEL (great product!!!). If there are any MS people out there then all I can say is: GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!!!!!!!!! Sorry about that, but these guys really tick me off!!! >Thanks in advance You are welcome in retrograde!! >Neal Harry E. Miller - "The Four-Fingered Bandit" unicorn@uxh.uiuc.cso.edu - Smile the Unicorn is watching you!
goldberg@iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) (05/15/91)
In <1991May15.015640.5894@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> unicorn@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Harry E Miller) writes: >(A little side comment you can ignore) >It seems strange that MS cannot produce products that are at least fairly >bug-free. What do they do, ignore their beta users! Also even though I >know that speed is not everything, it should at least mean something! >They only MS products I find userfull is MS Word 5.0 and MS EXCEL (great >product!!!). If there are any MS people out there then all I can say is: > GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!!!!!!!!! >Sorry about that, but these guys really tick me off!!! For whatever it's worth, MS-DOS 5.0, due out RSN has about 10,000,000,000,000 beta testers (ok, so I'm exaggerating, but only a little) and the reason (so little birdies tell me) is that they're actually fixing things the beta testers are reporting... -- Adam Goldberg ! "It's simple! Even a PASCAL programmer could do goldberg@iastate.edu ! it!" tabu6@isuvax.BITNET ! "Remember: the sooner you fall behind, the #include <disclaimer> ! more time you have to catch up!"
mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir) (05/16/91)
In article <5345@network.ucsd.edu> nbeck@weber.ucsd.edu (Nathaniel Beck) writes: >I am getting a new 486 and Gateway will install either Dos 3.3 or >4.01 at my option. With an 80M HD it would be nice to avoid having >C, D and E drives using Dos 4.01. But I remember that a while ago >people shied away from 4.01 because it was reputed to be buggy. Is >this still the case, and should I stick with tried and true 3.3? No. According to all reports (I haven't used it but plan to), Digital Research's DR DOS 5.0 is superior to DOS 3.3 and DOS 4.* but totally compatible (except for DOS utilities, of course). Otherwise, I would stick with 3.3. * * * * * * * ======================= Meir Green * * * * * * * * ======================= mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu * * * * * * * ======================= N2JPG
proberts@disk.uucp (Phil Roberts) (05/21/91)
mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir) writes: >In article <5345@network.ucsd.edu> nbeck@weber.ucsd.edu (Nathaniel Beck) writes: >>I am getting a new 486 and Gateway will install either Dos 3.3 or >>4.01 at my option. With an 80M HD it would be nice to avoid having >>C, D and E drives using Dos 4.01. But I remember that a while ago >>people shied away from 4.01 because it was reputed to be buggy. Is >>this still the case, and should I stick with tried and true 3.3? >No. According to all reports (I haven't used it but plan to), Digital >Research's DR DOS 5.0 is superior to DOS 3.3 and DOS 4.* but totally >compatible (except for DOS utilities, of course). Otherwise, I would stick >with 3.3. > * * * * * * * ======================= Meir Green >* * * * * * * * ======================= mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu > * * * * * * * ======================= N2JPG Why, "according to all reports", is DR DOS 5.0 superior? Phil -- Phil Roberts | Internet: proberts@disk.uucp Louisville, Kentucky | UUCP: uunet!coplex!disk!proberts |______________________________________________ "I `AM' a pro! I can't help it if my program won't work."
davel@booboo.SanDiego.NCR.COM (David Lord) (05/22/91)
In article <5345@network.ucsd.edu> nbeck@weber.ucsd.edu (Nathaniel Beck) writes: >I am getting a new 486 and Gateway will install either Dos 3.3 or >4.01 at my option. With an 80M HD it would be nice to avoid having >C, D and E drives using Dos 4.01. But I remember that a while ago >people shied away from 4.01 because it was reputed to be buggy. Is >this still the case, and should I stick with tried and true 3.3? If you're buying a new system, especially one with a big disk, get DOS 4.01. The only reason to get 3.3 is if you are running old versions of old programs. Nearly everything released within the past year or so is completely compatable with 4.01. I've run Windows, WordPerfect, Turbo C++, Borland C++, Mix Power C, Norton Utilities, Qemm, Aporia, Word for Windows, Hyperdisk, SimCity, Railroad Tycoon, and lots of others and am not aware of any problems relating to 4.01. Being able to have one large disk partition is IMHO invaluable (I have two 65meg disks). Ignore the wimps who tell you to stick to 3.3. They'll still be running that when the rest of us are happily running DOS 873.5 or OS/15.
ephram@violet.berkeley.edu (Ephram Cohen;B50 Tolman Hall;25352;4156548978;LE56) (05/23/91)
I have read a number of postings now refering to DOS 4.01 as buggy. Could someone be a little more explicit? What are the problems with DOS 4.01? -- We must prevent those commies from compromising the integrity of our precious bodily fluids. -Gen. Jack D. Ripper Ephram Cohen ephram@violet.berkeley.edu 466 44th St. #1 3210 Tolman Hall
gordon@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Gordon) (05/23/91)
ephram@violet.berkeley.edu (Ephram Cohen;B50 Tolman Hall;25352;4156548978;LE56) writes: >I have read a number of postings now refering to DOS 4.01 as buggy. Could >someone be a little more explicit? What are the problems with DOS 4.01? I think you may have mis-read the postings. The way I understand it, DOS 4.0 was buggy, but 4.01 is OK. --- John Gordon Internet: gordon@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu #include <disclaimer.h> gordon@cerl.cecer.army.mil #include <clever_saying.h>