🚀 go-pugleaf

heathh@roo (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes:

>In article <1991May19.103341.10003@nntp-server.caltech.edu>  
>nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) writes:
>> I too have been "unofficially" testing dos 5.0 and have a question about
>> its share.exe
>> 
>> If you don't load it, it doesn't warn about "large media". Unlike dos 4.01,
>> if its in your root dir (or shell directory), it does not appear to get
...
>The only way to properly load SHARE.EXE is to place it in your C:\ directory,  
>where it is loaded on boot-up along with IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.SYS.  I don't  
>know whether 5.0 has fixed the FCB problem with big drives or not, but it is  
>worth mentioning here that DOS 4.01 would only stop complaining about SHARE if  
>you kept it in the root directory or in a COMSPEC directory.  Even if you  
>installed it as a device driver in CONFIG.SYS, DOS 4.01 still complained.  On  

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am fully aware of the 
functions of share.exe, as well as the proper and improper methods of loading
it. What i mean here is that using various memory mappers, i discern NO 
difference between having share in your root and not having it at all. 
OBVIOUSLY, it shows up if i load it in config.sys, in batch, or from command
line. Essentially, what i am getting at is the following:
Did dos 5.0 fix the FCB problem in and of itself (i.e., its own resident
file handlers) and is share now only what the title implies; namely, extra
"sharing" features needed for networked file systems?
This would explain the lack of a warning message in the boot sequence, etc.

>...  Until further notice, I am keeping SHARE.EXE in my C:\.

Again, until further notice, i am not just keeping it in my root, i am loading
it explicitly.

nye