🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <278ab4b6-2430comp.ibmpc@point.UUCP>, akcs.vladimer@point.UUCP (kevin kadow) writes:
> Does anybody know anything about this product? Is it really anywhere near
> as good as their ads seem to claim?
> What are the drawbacks? bugs? fatal flaws?

I've used DR DOS 5.0 for a few months now. It is nice to use, very compatible,
and offers a lot of advantages for anyone using a 386 with 2Mb of RAM or more
(things you would have to get otherwise with expensive memory management
add-ons). If you don't have a 386, or have programs that manage the extra
memory themselves, there's still some advantage in DRDOS, but you have to
decide whether the advantages are worth the extra cost (in my opinion, not a
big problem). 

Advantages (not in any order):
* screen-oriented editor instead of EDLIN, Turbo/Wordstar-like (that may be a
  disadvantage to some)
* recall previous command lines with the arrow keys, and better editing of
  command lines in general.
* option of insert mode on by default
* better FASTOPEN
* good use of memory in all its forms (details below)
* VERY nice installation program, easy to understand, doesn't require
  reformatting your hard disk, easy to re-configure later, sensible questions
  about retaining existing files.
* Nice optional windowy user interface (better than PCDOS 4, probably not quite
  as good as MS DOS 5)
* free fast file transfer-over-coms-line utility
* read-write-execute password protection (file-by-file and whole dir's)... if
  used sensibly, this seems to be good protection from some viruses
* the boot sector program does a more complete restart, clearing memory, if
  this isn't a system disk (might help a wee bit with some viruses).
* CONFIG.SYS can have comments and (most importantly) optional lines (you are
  prompted whether to execute this line). Avoids separate boot diskettes for
  some situations.
* Norton's SI is happy with the disk caching system, compared with some 3rd
  party caching add-ons, with won't allow the disk test to proceed, i.e. the
  caching is more transparent, and gives faster transfer rates than some I
  have tested.
* built-in help with most (external) commands
* you can specify an indirect list of files - e.g. DIR @MYLIST
* good memory display utility (MEM), and a few other goodies... all reasonably
  well thought-out, and probably popular with Unix types.
* doesn't permit deleting all your files by typing DEL *ABC*.* (MSDOS treats
  this as DEL *.* while DRDOS gives an error message).
* Compatibility with NOVELL was said to be a key design goal. 
* DRDOS and any of your programs (at your option) can use any RAM space above
  640Kb (e.g. on a 386 or NEAT chipset 286's, with a mono video card, you can
  get 800Kb available for programs!
* option of confirm-before-delete (for some reason, there are 4 ways to do
  this under DRDOS!)

Disadvantages:
* When you JOIN a disk, the DOS call to show the disk space of the JOINed disk
  fails (but the DIR command, in the JOINed directory, gives the disk space of
  the wrong (root) directory - as MSDOS does).
* The caching program introduces too many disk seeks - the transfer rate is
  better but the average access time is actually WORSE! Norton's SI gives a good
  disk speed index, but that's too simple a test.
* Networking systems designed for/by Microsoft might not be sure to work. I
  don't know about MSNET but DECNET DOS (which was written by MS for DEC, I
  hear), and NCSA telnet & ftp seem to run okay (DECNET DOS's TFA actually
  works better with DRDOS's COMMAND.COM than MSDOS's for some reason, but I'm
  using an old version of DECNET DOS).  If you run odd-ball networking I'd
  suggest try-before-you-buy (which is good advice if you run clones or odd 
  BIOSes, etc, anyway).
* The FILELINK program doesn't know about modems, so you can't ask it to dial,
  etc. Also, you have to run it one command at a time (minor niggle).
* No BASIC (okay, perhaps that's an advantage!)
* The replacement for DEBUG is SID, which takes a little getting used to, but
  probably is better. Some commands are identical to DEBUG, some are different.
* The EDITOR program should have much better search/replace facilities, and
  although it recognises any function key redefinitions made via ANSI.SYS, it
  would be nicer if the program made more use of function keys (especially if
  you don't want ANSI.SYS loaded).
* If you use a 286 with extended memory (over 1Mb), and load the kernel high
  (at segment FFFF), you gain 37Kb of low memory (nice) but the other 27Kb out
  of the 64K seems to be wasted. You might even waste the rest of extended RAM.
* If you use extended memory for anything, it takes over all of the extended
  memory, leaving nothing for non-DRDOS software (as far as I can see), unless
  you grab it first - but then you can get conflicts.
* They use /H for help, while many programs use /?

Since the main advantage for most people, here's my summary of memory use:

ON A SIMPLE 8088/8086 or 286 with no more than 640Kb:
About the same memory requirements as MSDOS 3.3 (varies according to your
setup; you may want to use FASTOPEN more, and BUFFERS less). It will run on
a 256Kb machine (even a 208Kb DG1), but the installation program needs 512Kb;
of course you can manage without that. If you have EMS it can use it for a
virtual disk and/or caching, but not relocate DRDOS itself to give you extra
room for programs.

ON ANY 286 with memory above 1Mb:
You can choose to relocate 37Kb of the operating system's kernel up to segment
FFFF, i.e. use the first small part of extended memory (without upsetting
things too much by changing modes). This should give you about 600Kb available
to programs.  You can also use Extended memory for VDISK and/or CACHE. If you
use Extended memory for any DRDOS purpose, you'll see no extended memory left
for anything else, though.. I don't know why.

ON C&T LeAPSet, NEAT, etc 286 machines with more then 640Kb:
You can map RAM into gaps in the 640K to 1Mb region (left over after various
cards and BIOS ROMs), and use them for DRDOS, device drivers, and your own
programs (e.g. TSR's). I've had little problem with using this area for TSR's
except MARK/RELEASE and some parts of DECNET DOS. By default, this area is
closed off after DRDOS installs itself.

ON 386/486 machines:
All of the above, plus you can simulate EMS using Extended memory (using
EMM386.SYS). Again, you can get about 800Kb (with a Hercules card, less with
VGA) available to programs. If you use Windows, QEMM, etc then you'll probably
need to avoid some of DRDOS's fancy memory usage (a leaflet with DRDOS tells
you what to do; I've seen DRDOS+Windows3 working, but don't use it myself).

Summary:
A tidy package (they've added lots of things that should have been there years
ago, but not added too much), subjectively nice to use, and with some features
that might be very important to some people (password protection and use of
high/extended/expanded/upper memory). Some minor flaws, but no real worries.
A lot of the features are available as PD/whatever add-ons to standard DOS, but 
putting them into one cohesive product shows up in efficiency and ease of use.

Disclaimer: I'm just a satisfied customer. And no, I haven't tried MSDOS 5 yet.

Mark Aitchison, Physics Dept, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.