From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: Unix Roots of DOS?
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:01:53 GMT

In article <1662@necis.UUCP> dlyons@necis.UUCP (Dave Lyons) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.063313.23751@news.columbia.edu>, lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) wrote:
>> In article <1868@sdrc.COM> scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
>>>
>>>Like Brad said, the "MS-DOS 4.0" that did multitasking was only
>>>distributed in Europe and it was just distributed for a short time.  The
>>>"MS-DOS 4.0" designation was re-used much later world-wide for the
>>>MS-DOS-3.3-plus-large-partition-support-that-doesn't-quite-work-right-
>>>most-of-the-time that we've all come to know and love.
>> 
>> MS-DOS 4.01 was released several times.  The version where all files are
>> dated about April, 1989 is stable and functional.  I even use it today
>> sometimes.
>
>I think you have your DOS 4's mixed up.  As Larry and Brad said (see
>above) there was a multitasking version of DOS 4 released in Europe
>sort-of (sort-of multitasking - sort-of released) when we here in the
>US were still using DOS 3.x.  Because of that limited release, there
>wasn't supposed to BE a DOS 4 here in the US and Microsoft was going
>to jump directly to DOS 5.  Unfortunately, MS and IBM couldn't agree
>on this and IBM released PC-DOS 4.0 which had lots of bugs and is the
>main cause of most of the complaints about DOS 4.  Microsoft never
>released MS-DOS 4.0 but did release MS-DOS 4.01 which fixed most of
>the bugs left in the IBM release.  This is the MS-DOS you're referring
>to, not the European MS-DOS 4 that did multitasking referred to in the
>post you were following up.

I never claimed anything about the European DOS 4.0, this is expressly about
MS-DOS 4.01 over and above IBM's 4.00.  There were lotsa bugs in 4.01 early
as well, but most were fixed by April, 1989.

>On a side note, although you may be able to squeeze out a bit more
>memory with DR-DOS 6 than you can with MS-DOS 5, I've noticed a LOT
>more compatibility problems with DR-DOS than with MS-DOS.  IMHO, the
>small margin in memory is worth the price of using an OS where an
>application WILL run as opposed to an OS where an application will
>PROBABLY run.

Please inform me about these alleged DR-DOS 6 incompatibilities because if
you can document any of them DR will fix them.  If you are referring to any
problems with Windows 3.1, they are already obsolete, since all registered
users (I am a DR distributor/reseller) have received the mandatory update
to run Windows 3.1.  There are no problems there at all.  You can even
use the MS-DOS 5 components that Windows 3.1 tosses into your CONFIG.SYS
file although using the DR DOS equivalents results in better performance.

I haven't found more than a small handful of oddball problems with DR DOS
versus MS-DOS 5, and this was in reference to some odd programs that
predate either system and to some ill-documented system calls.  On the
contrary, I find that certain programs that won't run under DOS 4 or 5
*will* run under DR DOS 6!  Again, they were written with DOS 3.3 in mind.

The memory improvement isn't just a minor improvement; for some configurations
it's a major feature, such as having/not having upper memory at all.  Further
the 640K limit can be raised by 96K if you have a color interface and 64K
for a mono interface if you are willing to  reduce your graphics capability
to CGA only in the color case, and to MDA (none) in the mono case merely
by executing a reversible command.  For a 286 with NEAT, that means that
628K => 724K and for a 386 627K => 723K.  As I once posted here, when I
run Kermit-MS, and PUSH out to a DOS prompt, I have more memory available
at that point than most MS-DOS systems ever have!

So, please, by all means document this list of incompatibilities, or is it
just an unwillingness to go with someone other than Microsoft?

cjl