Article View: comp.os.msdos.misc
Article #85Re: Quality of DR-DOS 6.0 Software and Service
From: Frotz
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1992 23:25
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1992 23:25
45 lines
2703 bytes
2703 bytes
[Geez, its been a long time between news cycles;-) --Frotz]
phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
]In article <1992Oct27.174247.11260@cs.uwp.edu>, yusuf@cs.uwp.edu (Muhammad Yusuf) writes:
]> I own MS-DOS 5.0 and I love what it does for me. I also tried out
]> DR. DOS 6.0 but I was not very impressed. I hated the EDITOR and it
]> looked like a shareware thing. But I do believe that it has better
]> memory management, so you get more free conventional memory...
]Okay, the editor is better than EDLIN, but that isn't saying much. I guess the
]problem is that DR didn't want to annoy commercial software writers by packaging
]a product that is too good with DR-DOS. That might sound strange, but it is
]why the Data General DG-One's built-in editor was restricted, from what I read,
]and a Sun rep was telling me the same sort of thing with their system-supplied
]software. But I think they could've included a search & replace facility, and
]teh ability to define function keys, at least.
[Hi Mark!]
Personally I use a variant of MicroEMACS (v30.DRI.8) (free, fast,
80x50, 80x43, 80x25 support, macros, keybindings, multiple files and
buffers but files are limited to available memory;-{
Most people here in the office still use Editor, some use other
editors others don't.
I'm going from memory here, so I may get things slightly skewed here.
It's my understanding that the reason EDITOR looks the way that it
does is that it was reimplemented at the last moment by engineering
when the author of the editor that it is based on didn't like the
terms offered for his version. Most people that I know in the UK
development office tend to prefer this version (called QuickStar) to
the current implementation. I think that the reason for not having
Search & Replace were lack of time given the problem of not getting
the license that they wanted on QuickStar... (Personal opininion here
and not necessarily based in fact).
--
John "Frotz" Fa'atuai frotz@novell.com (email@domain)
Desktop Systems uunet!novell.com!frotz (bang address)
Group/Novell NOVELL:FROTZ or FROTZ@NOVELL (MHS address)
c/o TS Dept.
80 Garden Court 408/649-8209 (fax)
Monterey, CA 93940
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ASLSBY9L@dri.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!drivax!frotzReferences:
<1992Oct24.192815.8396@super.org> <1992Oct27.174247.11260@cs.uwp.edu> <1992Oct28.135313.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!drivax!frotz From: frotz@dri.com (Frotz) Subject: Re: Quality of DR-DOS 6.0 Software and Service Message-ID: <ASLSBY9L@dri.com> Sender: frotz@novell.com Reply-To: frotz@novell.com Organization: Desktop Systems Group/Novell, Monterey CA/USA References: <1992Oct24.192815.8396@super.org> <1992Oct27.174247.11260@cs.uwp.edu> <1992Oct28.135313.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 92 23:25:41 GMT Lines: 45