dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) (03/29/91)
I am buying a new 386DX/25 with a 130MEG hard drive. I am not sure which DOS version to get. I have a 286 w/65MEG drive now, running 3.2. Of course I have two 33MEG partitions which gives me a C and D drive. I really don't want to now have a C,D,E,F & F drive. I can get a copy of DOS 4.0 (IBM) for a good price (free) but see a DOS 4.01 out there. Will both of these let me "see" the full size on the C prompt? What was the differance between 4.0 and 4.01? I see people talking about 4DOS but I can't FTP from my sight :-( Any help would be great. Thanks in advance. Daniel Dawdy@tellabs.com
bbesler@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Brent H. Besler) (03/31/91)
I have an AMI bios based Jameco clone. I run Compaq DOS 3.31. It allows over 32 Mbyte partitions, yet it is pretty small. I have 590K available for applications after DOS is loaded.
lsh@polari.UUCP (Lee Hauser) (04/01/91)
In article <5707@tellab5.tellabs.com> dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) writes: >drive. I can get a copy of DOS 4.0 (IBM) for a good price (free) >but see a DOS 4.01 out there. Will both of these let me "see" >the full size on the C prompt? What was the differance between >4.0 and 4.01? I see people talking about 4DOS but I can't FTP >from my sight :-( Any help would be great. > IBM DOS 4.0 is presumably similar to 4.01. 4.0 got a bad rep for being very buggy, but that was IBM only -- all others have the worst probs fixed. IMHO, the ONLY reason to have 4.x is drive partitioning. It takes too much memory and really adds very little to DOS 3.3. If you can get Compaq DOS 3.31, it has all the joys of DOS 3.3 plus large partitions. 4dos won't help, it is just a command interpreter that runs on whatever DOS you booted with (though it is far superior to anything Microsoft or IBM ever put out). Wait and see what DOS 5.0 does... >Dawdy@tellabs.com -- ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= uw-beaver!sumax!seattle!lsh -- lsh@seattle Lee Hauser If I pay for access, I don't have to disclaim ANYTHING!
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (04/02/91)
>the ONLY reason to have 4.x is drive partitioning. It takes too much memory >and really adds very little to DOS 3.3. If you can get Compaq DOS 3.31, it >has all the joys of DOS 3.3 plus large partitions. 4dos won't help, it is Zenith DOS 3.3 Plus also has the above features, plus a lot of nonstandard Zenith stuff, eg. a Norton-like file editor/undeleter called GDI, a low-level formatter called PREP, FDISK renamed to PART, etc. I don't know how well it would work on a non-Zenith. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
smsmith@hpuxa.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (04/02/91)
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) writes: >>the ONLY reason to have 4.x is drive partitioning. It takes too much memory >>and really adds very little to DOS 3.3. If you can get Compaq DOS 3.31, it >>has all the joys of DOS 3.3 plus large partitions. 4dos won't help, it is > >Zenith DOS 3.3 Plus also has the above features, >plus a lot of nonstandard Zenith stuff, eg. a >Norton-like file editor/undeleter called GDI, ^^^ >a low-level formatter called PREP, FDISK renamed >to PART, etc. I don't know how well it would >work on a non-Zenith. I believe it's called GDU. It works great on a non-Zenith: In a pinch last summer I used GDU on a NEC machine to find and eradicate a virus (stoned). Strangely enough, when I try to use it with an earlier version of DOS, it comes back "WRONG DOS VERSION!" and aborts, but when I tried to use it on my new computer just out of curiosity, if worked fine--even though I have a LATER version of DOS (4.01 instead of 3.3). Stephen M. Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) (04/05/91)
In article <5707@tellab5.tellabs.com> dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) writes: >I am buying a new 386DX/25 with a 130MEG hard drive. I am not >sure which DOS version to get. I have a 286 w/65MEG drive now, >running 3.2. Of course I have two 33MEG partitions which gives >me a C and D drive. I really don't want to now have a C,D,E,F & F >drive. I can get a copy of DOS 4.0 (IBM) for a good price (free) >but see a DOS 4.01 out there. Will both of these let me "see" >the full size on the C prompt? What was the differance between >4.0 and 4.01? I see people talking about 4DOS but I can't FTP Let me recommend DR DOS 5.0 by Digital Research. This is a fully compatible MS-DOS replacement that has many more features than any existing (shipping) version of MS-DOS. One of the nicest features it has is the ability to load-high a part of the operating system. This frees up a big chunk of memory in the lower 640K region and lets you run larger applications. It lets you have disk partitions up to 512MB. It has built-in command line editing similar to dosed. It comes with a screen editor much better than edlin. The list of additional features is too long to list here; try it, you'll like it. I run DR DOS on my 386-33 and have found no compatibility problems at all. I've successfully run Windows 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode and DESQview 386 under DR DOS. 4DOS is not a DOS replacement. It is a COMMAND.COM replacement. It still requires MS-DOS or DR DOS as the base OS. I also highly recommend 4DOS if you can find it (try your local BBS or shareware distributor). -- Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Altos Computer Systems UUCP: {sun|pyramid|sco|amdahl|uunet}!altos!jerry 2641 Orchard Parkway Internet: jerry@altos.com San Jose, CA 95134 Help stamp out vi in our lifetime. (408) 432-6200