🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <25ccd167.2d5d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, by jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck):
> 
> In article <1232@shelby.Stanford.EDU> roller@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Jason Deines) writes:
>>I've always been puzzled as to why DOS 4.01 insists on having SHARE.EXE
>>loaded when dealing with large partitions.  All it says in the manual is
>>something to the effect that "SHARE must be loaded, or unpredictable
>>behavior will result".  Thing is, I've had people tell me that's a lot of
>>nonsense, and that they've run without SHARE for months with no problem at
>>all.
> 
> I have an 80 mb disk, and DOS 4.01, and have never loaded share.  So far
> I have had no problems.  The purpose of share is supposed to be to support
> file and record locking in a multiuser situation.
 
I seem to remember having some problems when I disabled share.  I don`t
remember what kind of problems, but I left it on.  Later I made two 
partitions on my hard disk so that one wasn`t >32meg because with share
I couldn't get some of my older software to work.  This has worked out
fine for me so far.  But eventually, I`ll want a larger partition.  
So, I'm asking, is this true?  Nobody has experienced any problems without
share loaded?  I was under the impression that share keeps track of 
where the files are and without it, it may not be able to find a file
it is looking for.  Am I way off base?  Does anybody know for sure
the facts?

Many thanks for your input.

=========================================================================
Greg Cook                                Chemistry IS life! 
Michigan State University      Watch for the next generation of Enamines 
gcook@horus.cem.msu.edu              coming to a Journal near you!