🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun11.201719.26512@chinet.chi.il.us> prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) writes:
>I just read a very positive review of the new MS-DOS (5.0), which
>Microsoft has just released. Claims it:
>- takes up much less RAM than previous versions;

I usually had about 520K available w/ 4.1.  With 5.0 I get 612K!!  I was
so happy I added SMARTDRV which dropped me to 594K, so I'm still 74K 
ahead...  This is on a plain ol' 286 with 1Mb of RAM.

>- includes the very good undelete and unformat utilities from PC Tools
>Deluxe;
>- dumps EDLIN in favor of a full-screen text editor;

The new editor is nice but the IBM version only works on REAL(?) pc's 
because it call QBASIC which uses the ROM BASIC.  Edlin is still there!

>- includes a DOS SHELL that features task switching;

Seems to work well, I had Borland C++, Quattro Pro, Qmodem and a command
shell running all at once.  I was expecting a crash any second but it held
up well.  I chickened out after about 15 minutes but will try for longer 
tomorrow. 

>- has a much-improved setup routine, which will take advantage of the
>memory between 640K and 1 meg on 386 and 486 machines;

Installation was VERY painless!! renamed config and autoexec to .OLD.
and installs generic versions.  It evens sets the prompt to $P$G.

>- unlike the notorious version 4.01, has been extensively beta-tested
>and debugged before release.

I think they were SOOOO guilty about DOS 4, they tried extra hard on 5.
It is very polished, even the manuals look good. (IBM, haven't seen the
MS version.)
>
)I've also heard (in much less detail) that Digital Research's new DR-DOS
)5.0 is quite an imrpovement over MS-DOS 4.x.
)I'd be very interested in informed comment on these two products.
)Supposedly either makes Windows 3.0 run better - true?
)I'm particularly interested in comment from an office-environment
)perspective: i.e., no real power users, no programming, just operating
)machines running Windows, WordPerfect, PageMaker, Lotus, DataEase, and
)etc. And perhaps most importantly, do 286's realize any significant
)benefits from these two products, or are 386s really required to see
)noticeable improvement?

Most software seems to work pretty well,  It even has a command to Lie
to programs if they are looking for an older DOS version!!

The HELP is also a great new feature. just type /? after a command for 
a complete syntax list and explanation.

>Let the flames begin...

I doubt that DOS 5 will get flamed much... except of course by the regular
crowd of DOS haters.

( ONLY two more versions necessary to obtain "Version Number Parity" with
  Macintosh! )
>
>prb@chinet.chi.il.us
>Paul Botts

/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
*   I don't express opinions, I just follow orders...             (___)   *
/                                                                 (o o)   /
*                              One of the few .sig's ->    /-------\ /    *
/   Andy Wilks                  with ASCII livestock.     / |     ||O     /
*   android@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                           *  ||,---||      *
/   University of Texas at Austin                           ^^    ^^      /
*   copyright (c) 1934,1942,1961,1990,1991                    BEVO        *
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/