🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes:
>Hi - I have a quick question,
>
>I have been running under the assumption that DOS 4.x is NOT the way to
>go.  I guess someplace I heard that it is MUCH bigger than 3.3 and that
>the "graphical interface" (is this COMMAND.COM?) is not that good.  In
>scanning some other News I happened to notice that 4.x supports disc
>partitions bigger than 32K.  IF THIS IS TRUE it is a VERY big plus.  Is
>the shell really all that bad.  Does is really support partition bigger
>than 32K?  Do you have to use this "graphical interface" or is there
>something more like COMMAND.COM included also?  How does Windows 3.0 and
>DOS 4.x get along.  How about utilities like Mace and Fastback - do they
>have problems with the large partitions?  I assume that even though
>the Hard Disc is a large partition that the standard floppies still
>work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up that bad).
>

MS DOS 4.x is really not that bad. Yes, it is bigger than 3.3, but only
when you run on a machine w/o EMS memory. (I run a 386 with QEMM) When
you have EMS memory (the kludge that it is) you end up with more available
REAL memory for your programs. It also deals with large FAT partitions.
It is rumored that DOS 5.00 will support OS/2 style HPFS partitions, but
that's off the subject. The graphical "shell" is an add-on and not a 
replacement for command.com. I don't know about Mace and Fastback, but Norton
utilities run fine. Personally, I have run into no problems running DOS 4
in the last 6 months. 

My $.02 ....
Steve


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
steve.resnick@f105.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG - or - apple!camphq!105!steve.resnick
Flames, grammar errors, spelling errrors >/dev/nul
The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 IFNA 1:143/105.0