wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) (08/18/90)
Should I be wary of MS-DOS 4.01? When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, 3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? I am currently running 3.30A on an 8-MHz 286 with two 32-meg disks, so I see no reason to change to 4.01 right now. I'm thinking more in terms of when I upgrade to newer, faster hardware sometime down the road; if a vendor offers me a package deal with 4.01, should I say "no, thanks, I'd rather have 3.3"? -- -- Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683 "You must not drink the tea. It is deadly to humans."
lupic@micasa.UUCP (Jack Lupic) (08/18/90)
wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: > Should I be wary of MS-DOS 4.01? > > When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first > came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that > one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, > 3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). > > Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? > > As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer > 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without > having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? I have been using Phoenix MS DOS 4.01 (essentially the same as Microsoft MS DOS 4.01) for a year now and it works great.The 99.9% of the bugs have been fixed in this version of Dec 89. MS/PC DOS 4.0 had many problems but that is now history. You don't really get much more with 4.01 except to be able to use single partition larger than 33Megs.Stick with MS DOS 3.3. Cheers, Jack Lupic Scarborough,Ont.,CAN. Internet: lupic%micasa@torag.UUCP OR lupic%micasa@contact.UUCP UUCP: !torag!micasa!lupic OR !contact!micasa!lupic = "The three most dangerous things in the world are: a programmer with a = = soldering iron, a hardware type with a program patch and a user with = = an idea."
mikey@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Michael GALLOP) (08/18/90)
In article <38144@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: >Should I be wary of MS-DOS 4.01? > >When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first >came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that >one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, >3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). > >Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? No, It isn't true anymore-- As far as far as I've seen. As usual it was released late and pushed out the door (Can anyone release software on time ? :-)). So there was bugs....The same reason I haven't bought Windows 3.0 yet- Now however it is stabilized... The original was, in fact 4.0 and a major bug fix was 4.01 > >As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer >4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without >having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? That is a big factor (I use a Wren V so...) the memory management for some strange reason is better... The memory mapping features are nice. I get fewer malloc errors with 4.01 then 3.30A. One caveat though. If you use an earlier version (like last year!) of SCO/Xenix your DOS partition is not recognized... I had a hell of a time with that one... >I am currently running 3.30A on an 8-MHz 286 with two 32-meg disks, so I >see no reason to change to 4.01 right now. I'm thinking more in terms >of when I upgrade to newer, faster hardware sometime down the road; if a >vendor offers me a package deal with 4.01, should I say "no, thanks, I'd >rather have 3.3"? Oh hell no. I orginally ran 4.00 on a 286-10 with a st251-1 and have no problems. When I upgraded to a 386-33 with a Wren V there were no problems from DOS. ---found out a few things about the AST VGA plus. These are just inane ramblings....There is a lot of white noise on the net recently, so I'm adding to it :-) -- | mikey@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca | "Life is just a linear Regression to Chaos," | | Mike Gallop | "...Poured through a Klein bottle" | | You think my profs know who I am to disclaim me?!?? | |"Stealing from one author is plagarism....Stealing from many is research" |
gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) (08/18/90)
If you have not updated to Dos 4.01 don't bother. Version 5 is in beta testing even as I type. There are all sorts of rumors about it. I even heard that it enters protected mode, had reentrant services, and more. NONE of this may be true, ALL of it may be true, OR (more likely) SOME of it is true. ciao jeff ps. I've been using DOS 4.00 for over a year, no real problems... None that dos caused anyway... -- Jeff Watkins gt3070b@prism.gatech.edu Convergent Media Systems (404) 315-0105 voice (404) 315-0231 data "I speak for no-one. AND NO-ONE SPEAKS FOR ME... oh, yes, _dear_...I gotta go..."
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (08/21/90)
>Should I be wary of MS-DOS 4.01? > 4.01 is okay. >As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer >4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without >having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? Not really. 4.01 on my system takes up about 17KB more low RAM for the same configuration. I'd wait for 5.0 (or better yet 5.01 :-) which is expected out shortly. Otherwise stay with 3.3. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP SPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
teittinen@cc.helsinki.fi (08/21/90)
In article <38144@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: > When 4.01 (or maybe it was the original 4.0, I don't remember) first > came out, I recall hearing various reports that it was flaky, and that > one would be better off sticking with 3.3 (or the maintenance release, > 3.30A, which fixed the DRIVPARM parsing bug and a few other things). > > Is this still true? Or is 4.01 considered stable and OK to use now? As far as I know (and I've been using 4.01 for a looong time now) there are no more bugs in 4.01 than any other version of DOS. At the moment I can't remember any that would have come across, though I found some of the 4.0 bugs. > As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer > 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without > having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? I myself prefer 4.01 to 3.3. I currently don't use large partitions either, but there are many added handy options to many familiar DOS commands. And the GRAPHICS.COM can print EGA and VGA graphics screens too. And the new MEM-program that shows all kinds of data about the memory usage is very handy too. And I've possibly forgot to mention some nice features that I use so often that I can't even think thay havn't been there all the time. The truth is, that whenever I have to do anything with earlier DOS-version than 4, I notice within 10 minutes that one or another feature is missing. The only drawback of 4.01 is that it requires a bit more memory than 3.3 (especially if you accept AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS created by the installation program), but you can free memory by using MEM and modifying AUTOEXEC and CONFIG. This is just my opinion. 4.01 haters, don't bother to flame. -- E-Mail: teittinen@finuh.bitnet ! teittinen@cc.helsinki.fi ! UNIX is a four-letter word Marko Teittinen, student of computer science !
mcolan@lotus.com (Mark Colan) (08/21/90)
I went to DOS 4.01 primarily for large disk support. It also has a shell for the non-hacker which I don't use. A tiny feature I like is that the CONFIG.SYS now accepts (and ignores) REM lines for comments. Only bug I have found is that when you have both a VGA and mono card in your system (such as you might if you were doing 2-monitor debugging in OS/2 or Windows), the command "mode co80,nn" (where nn is 43, 50, etc) will no longer work: DOS says the function is not supported by this computer. If you remove the mono card, it successfully puts the monitor into 43-line or 50-line mode (which I prefer). A few questions for you others: 1. DOS complains that I should use SHARE with large media, yet seems to work fine without it. I can't find out why I should, what it buys me, etc. I DO have a large disk with one partition over 150MB. 2. Does anyone have a MODE program that allows me to change to 43 and 50 line mode but without destoying the cursor? I have a Sigma Legend VGA. Mark Colan
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (08/22/90)
In article <38144@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes: > As far as I am currently aware, the only real reason one might prefer > 4.01 over 3.3 is that 4.01 can use a disk larger than 32 meg without > having to partition it. Are there any other reasons? You can put your buffers into expanded memory with the /X switch. That will free up some low RAM depending on how many BUFFERS you have in your CONFIG.SYS. Of course, you MUST have an EMM loaded first to do it. My manual says that buffers take up 528 bytes each. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
markus@cernvax.UUCP (markus baertschi) (08/22/90)
In <1990Aug21.164046.19087@lotus.com> mcolan@lotus.com (Mark Colan) writes: >1. DOS complains that I should use SHARE with large media, yet seems to > work fine without it. I can't find out why I should, what it buys SHARE.EXE was originally provided for DOS LAN support where one of it's tasks were to map the old DOS 1.x FCB calls to the newer style calls. As the DOS 4 large disk support only works with the newer file calls DOS asks you to load SHARE.EXE to map the old calls to the new calls. So, if you don't run *very* old programs you don't need SHARE, but if you want to absolutely shure you'll have to pay the price (memory). Markus -- Markus Baertschi | markus@cernvm.cern.ch CERN (European Particle Research Center) Geneva, Switzerland
schwalbe@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Jim Schwalbe) (08/29/90)
I have seen an advertisement for DOS 3.31 which claims to break the 32
Megabyte restriction. If this is true (can anyone verify this?) then
what's the difference between 3.31 and 4.01? It seems strange to me that
they would make a major change like that and only bump the rev from
3.30A to 3.31.
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
: Jim Schwalbe .----------------. "Half of what I say is :
: Hardware Research Group .--+-------------. | meaningless; but I say it :
: Encore Computer Corp. | | E N C O R E | | so that the other half may :
: Mail: {bu-cs,talcott} | `-------------+--' reach you." :
: !encore!schwalbe `----------------' - Kahil Gibran :
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug21.164046.19087@lotus.com> mcolan@lotus.com (Mark Colan) writes: > I went to DOS 4.01 primarily for large disk support. It also has a > shell for the non-hacker which I don't use. A tiny feature I like is > that the CONFIG.SYS now accepts (and ignores) REM lines for comments. I like this feature of 4.01 also!!! > A few questions for you others: > > 1. DOS complains that I should use SHARE with large media, yet seems to > work fine without it. I can't find out why I should, what it buys > me, etc. I DO have a large disk with one partition over 150MB. The only reason I install share is so I don't run into myself when trying to ascces the same file while I'm in DesqView 386. I am aware of some kind of file size limatation that it corrects with software that expects a hard disk to be no larger than 32Meg. -- Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(201)882-3100 Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07201 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm "... No matter where you go, there you are ..."