HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: warlok@rhps.chi.il.us (Jon L Fincher)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Is dos 6.0 gonna multitask? Or have no memory barrier????
Keywords: dos 6
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 18:19:45 CST
Organization: CrissySoft Incorporated

> >They're still playing catch-up with DR-DOS.  People have been saying
> >that DOS 7 multitasks and breaks the 640K barrier.  I claim it'll
> >never happen.  There have to be other people here who remember way
> >back when DOS 3.x was king, and DOS 4 was going to "Have multitasking
> >and break the 640K barrier!" 
> 
> In fact, there were two completely different DOS 4's.  One was released only 
> in Europe, and did do multitasking.  The other was developed by IBM, and 
> didn't.  Only descendants of the IBM version were ever released in North 
> America.

The only problem with multitasking DOS is that you almost need 286 protected
mode to do it well.  It's not necessary, but to get any type of acceptable
throughput, you need it.  This creates two problems:

  1) There are people, like me, who still use 8088 crap machines.  Any
     use of protected mode pretty much leaves us out.

  2) The bigger problem, since the XT base is growing smaller all the time,
     is all those real mode DOS apps out there.  Since protected mode
     doesn't use seg:off, but selector tables, you'll have to re-write
     all your software.  Try telling Lotus to re-write 1-2-3 for DOS.

Of course, you might come up with a nifty switching scheme that ran in
swapped programs to and from lo and high memory, then let them run in
low memory.  Of course.  This would require swapping all segments, making
use of all available EMS/XMS and disk space, and being able to restore all
the registers.  Also, don't count on making too many intersegment calls
with all this swapping going on, nor can you count of DOS to be in any
stable position, although it might be fixed in lo mem somewhere.

And what about TSR's and device drivers?  Where would they go?  What if your
TSR is swapped out, and you hit the hot key?  Your program would get
swapped, the TSR comes into lo mem, executes, gets killed, gets swapped
back up, then your original program comes back in.  Unless you've goit
hi memory, the disk swapping would be unbearable.

My opinion - forget having DOS multitask, ever.  If you need mutli-tasking,
write your own code to swap your own program, or use Windows.  (sorry)

J.L. Fincher, Warlok
From: Michel.Davidoff@sonoma.edu (Michel Davidoff)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Wild Backup idea
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:09:46 GMT
Organization: Sonoma state university

We are considering/thinking about this wild idea.

We have a network of PC's on Ethernet and Localtalk.
We'd like to "Backup" those machines to our Cyber.
Sorry but no flame (We have no money).
We are thinking about FTPing users Hard disks during the night.
Any ideas/input expiernce would be helpful.
The average Hard disk size is 30 MB.


Thank You
Michel Davidoff
E-Mail Michel.Davidoff@Sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: hshulman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harvey G Shulman)
Subject: Re: Device driver for QIC-80 tape. Is there one?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:22:40 GMT

Some time ago I tried to get the same information, by posting to
internet and Compuserve.  Colorado Memory and other vendors all
refused to provide software interfaces to their QIC-80 drives,
claiming that they weren't meant for use as DOS devices.  That
was not satisfactory but its all they'd tell me.  As a result
I do know where to begin, but not much more.  

First you have to decide
whether you really need a DOS device driver that treats the QIC-80
as though it were a disk drive.  If that's true, give up, it can't
be done in a satisfactory way.  If instead you just want to write and
read blocks of data in a sequential fashion and are willing to keep track
of where in a file each record starts, etc, then you've got a chance.
This is my situation, since all I wanted to do was store large blocks 
of data on the tape and associate a name and starting location with 
each, which is what the backup software that comes with the tape does.

Second, you'd have to get the QIC-80 standard from whatever committee
keeps track of these things.  That's what CMS told me to do, and they can
provide the name and address if pressed.  

Third, you'd have to write a device handler that deals with the
drive controler and drive directly.  There are some proprietary
tricks involved that may or may not be part of QIC-80.  For
example the CMS drive shares the floppy cable with my 
B drive.  The CMS software knows how to turn the tape drive on and
the floppy off even though they're connected to the same
interface.  How?

Clearly the vendors of QIC-80 drives, like Colorado Memory, have
solved all of the above and could easily provide the device handler
needed to perform a simple set of I/O functions.  It is annoying and
frustrating that they refuse to do so when asked.  Hopefully one
among them will see a competitive advantage in making such
software available, but to date all I've contacted have the same
attitude as CMS- "our equipment is only intended for DOS file
backup, and is unusable for other purposes".


Harvey Shulman
Ohio State University



Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: mluong@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Mingh Luong)
Subject: Direct connection transfers
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:43:38 GMT

Does anyone know a file which tells a person how to make a cable
for direct connections using a modular phone cord, and serial 
connectors?  Also, I was told by someone a program called
"The Flying Dutchman" was a file which tells how to make the cable
and also provides the transfer software.  Is it avaliable somewhere
in the net?

Thanks in advance
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: robert@alkymi.unit.no (Robert Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Saving machine state
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:50:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.154958.9682@unix.brighton.ac.uk>, rjb12@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Titch) writes:
> Does anyone know of a method to save the state of a PC (ie environment, 
> data, programs) - up to the 1MB boundary - so that, later, I can reload
> and things behave as if no interruption occurred.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rich.

Hmmm.  Interesting idea.  I guess you are aware of laptops which does exactly
this at the press of a button, but i take it you want such a beast for
a normal table-top pc.

A program to save and restore the PC state will have to be run in protected
mode, that is, it will probably only work on 386s or better.  The code
will have to reside above the first megabyte, otherwise overlap conflicts 
will occur when restoring the memory image.

Also, the video state should be saved correctly.  Consider all those 
undocumented VGA modes and Super VGA modes...  you have to save all VGA
registers in addition to the VGA memory.  All BIOS variables and
the interrupt vectors should be saved, too...  ah well, just some
thoughts.

Let me know if you get any positive response on this.  Task-switching is
possible, as we can observe in DOS 5.0, so saving a task to disk and
restoring it another day should be possible
 
> Rich Browning (rjb12@bton.unix)   * The Intel Plentium: Ethernet controller  


Robert
From: ssnyder@prism.poly.edu (Sharon Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Formatting a 3.5" HD diskette to 720K - broken?
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:18:09 GMT
Organization: Polytechnic University, New York

To format a 3.5 HD disk as DD (720k) cover up the extra hole (not
the write protect stuff) and format it as 720K (I forget the
command line right now).  It should work.

Sharon Snyder

ssnyder@prism.poly.edu
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Echo command in batch files
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:03:37 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Nov20.020415.8774@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
  sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> From article <1992Nov19.163626.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> by f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin):
>> In article <tim.12.722026318@tim.src.utah.edu>,
>> tim@tim.src.utah.edu (Tim Ma) writes:
>>> To "suppress" the CR/LF in the DOS echo command, try:
>>> 
>>> echo hello>temp world >> temp
>>> 
>>> Output should be:
>>> hello world
>>> 
>>> Seems to work with MSDOS 5.0.
>> 
>> With DR DOS 6.0 too.  The question is: What does this batch line do?
> 
> 	echo hello -- 	sends 'hello' plus a carriage return to
> 			the display
> 
> 	>temp      --	intercepts the output of 'echo hello' and
> 			sends it instead to the file named temp

Then TEMP should contain a CR right after hello...

> 	world      --	continuation of the 'echo' command I think,
> 			now sending 'world' to the display
> 
> 	>> temp    --   intercepts the echoing of 'world' and sends
> 			it instead to the file named temp, appending
> 			to it rather than overwriting

...but it doesn't!

Neat.  I have NEVER seen > and >> on the same batch file line before.
But I wonder if this behavior is a batch language bug.

As I understand it, I thought COMMAND.COM scanned the command line
left to right, and when reaching a > or >>, parsed the remainder as a
filename and ignored what it couldn't understand.
"echo a > temp b >> temp" is undefined, I think.

BTW, I discovered that on DR DOS the simpler 
  ECHO hello > temp world
produces the same effect as the above: no >> needed.  Weird....
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
From: M.E.Bullivant@bradford.ac.uk (Martin Bullivant)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Disable CTRL+BREAK from a TP6 program
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:25:45 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 89067960@ccw311
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


How do I disable the CTRL+BREAK key sequence from within a TP6 program?
I tried the SetCBreak(FALSE) statement, but nothing seems to happen!

Why???

~Martin Bullivant (M.E.Bullivant@uk.ac.bradford [INTERNET address])

-- 
The victors invariably write the history to their own advantage.
    -- Picard, "Contagion", stardate 42609.1 
From: franks@hpuamsa.neth.hp.com (Frank Slootweg CRC)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:07:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Help: Dos 5.0 Mirror command
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, The Netherlands
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc

peter@aci_1.aci.ns.ca (Peter Cormier) writes:

> I have read that the new MIRROR command will save disk recovery data to be 
> used by the UNFORMAT command.  My source indicates that a copy of the FAT 
> and root directory is saved in a file called MIRRORSAV.FIL, and that this 
> file is saved on the disk located in the drive specified by the MIRROR 
> command.  My question is this.  After a format command has been issued where 
> is the file MIRRORSAV.FIL located?  Am I wrong in believing that DOS uses 
> this file to restore the diskette to its condition as of the time the MIRROR 
> command was issued ?

  I do not have MS-DOS 5.0 (but DR DOS 6.0), but I think this stuff came
from Central Point and is similar to those in CP's PC Tools, which I
have (6.0).

  The MIRRORSAV.FIL file is located at the end of the disk and UNFORMAT
knows how to get it after a FORMAT. This will work for a hard-disk. For
a diskette it will work if you have not have done a destructive
(/DESTROY in PC Tools' PCFORMAT) format.

> It appears that Microsoft has once again produced a good piece of 
> software supported by poor documentation.

  They did not produce it, but bought it from CP. In the process they
forgot to supply the CP documentation. Do yourself a favor: Buy a book
on PC Tools (and a real OS like DR DOS 6.0 :-)).

Frank Slootweg
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: syserror@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Artificial Intelligence)
Subject: Stacker- password option?
Organization: The Superior Silicon Race
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:34:20 GMT


Does anyone know about a password option in the versions 1 and 2 of Stacker?
I've heard the new V3 is supposed to have a password option.  However, many
months ago when I was looking through the STACKER.COM file from V1.10, I
noticed text such as "Enter password".  I disassembled code near the text and
discovered code that did print the text and take input.  I then tried finding
any code that called this segment, with no luck.  Version 2 also has the
"Enter password" text and code which prints it and accepts input, but I've not
traced any code that calls this area of the program in V2, either.  Has 
anyone else noticed this?  The first and second versions are not supposed to
support passwords protection of Stacker volumes; their manuals make no 
reference to this.  Do the versions 1 and 2 of Stacker actually have
an undocumented password option?  Or was this code perhaps an abortive attempt
at adding a password option that they never implemented until V3?  

Thanks-


Aaron
-- 
Lifetimes come and go, memories pass and fade;
The frailties of carbon based life shall yield
To the superior permanence of silicon...
From: orenalex@bimacs.BITNET (Alex Oren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Is dos 6.0 gonna multitask? Or have no memory barrier????
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:41:07 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL


>DOS doesn't have a 640K barrier.  DOS will use as much CONTINOUS memory it
>can find.

Wrong!

DOS, as a real-mode-8086 operating system (?) cannot use more than 1MB
of memory (ROM, RAM and variations).

The 1MB barrier comes from the 8086 architecture.
The 640K barrier comes from IBM's design of the PC, where 384K where
reserved for the BIOS, video buffer, adapter memory etc.

If an OS uses memory schemes which depend on more than 20-bit address
space (XMS), require protected-mode (DPMI, VCPI) or special hardware
support (EMS) then it cannot run on a plain PC/XT compatible,
so it is not "DOS".

However, there were computers which implemented the video buffer
higher in memory, leaving DOS with more than 640K (though less than 1MB)



Arivederci,
Alex




Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: shenoy@iastate.edu (Shiva Shenoy)
Subject: Re: HP Laserjet 4 printer drivers??
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:24:21 GMT

In <pthomson.722459139@pv1424.vincent.iastate.edu> pthomson@iastate.edu (I Forgot) writes:

>I just purchased a HP laserjet 4 for home use.  However the only driver that
>was included with the printer was for Wordperfect 5.1.  The documentation says
>I can get other drivers from compuserve but I don't subscribe to that.  Does
>anyone know where on the network I can get HP LJ 4 drivers for Windows 3.1,
>Harvard Graphics, and Autocad R12??

I think I saw it at ftp.cica.indiana.edu in the pub/pc/win3/uploads 
directory. You need to get lj4win31.txt and lj4win31.exe . This is the 
self-extracting file for the windows 3.1 driver.

-- 
Shiva Shenoy                           | e-mail: shenoy@iastate.edu 
2066 Black,                            | Office: (515)-294-0082
Dept. of Aero. Engg. & Engg. Mechanics | Home  : (515)-296-7640
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: rbook@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert Aaron Book)
Subject: Environment space, Path
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:50:01 GMT

When I set my PATH in my AUTOEXEC.BAT file, the actual
PATH variable displayed when typing SET does not have all the directories
listed.  I think this is because of limited environment space, so 
I used the "SHELL=" line in CONFIG.SYS to make the environment
space bigger (with the /e option of COMMAND.COM).

This did not work.  How can I fix this?

--Robert Book
  rbook@rice.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: peter@aci_1.aci.ns.ca (Peter Cormier)
Subject: Help: Dos 5.0 Mirror command
Organization: Atlantic Computer Institute
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:32:10 GMT

I have read that the new MIRROR command will save disk recovery data to be 
used by the UNFORMAT command.  My source indicates that a copy of the FAT 
and root directory is saved in a file called MIRRORSAV.FIL, and that this 
file is saved on the disk located in the drive specified by the MIRROR 
command.  My question is this.  After a format command has been issued where 
is the file MIRRORSAV.FIL located?  Am I wrong in believing that DOS uses 
this file to restore the diskette to its condition as of the time the MIRROR 
command was issued ?

It appears that Microsoft has once again produced a good piece of 
software supported by poor documentation.



***************************************
*          Peter Cormier              *
*       PETER@ACI_1.ACI.NS.CA         *
*     Atlantic Computer Institute     *
*     Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada    *
***************************************
From: Brian.Milner@brunel.ac.uk (Brian D Milner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: DOS 3.30 -> 5.00 restore :ACHIEVED!
Date: 22 Nov 92 09:24:40 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

DOS3.30 Backup -> DOS 5.00 Restore?

Thanks for all the e-mails and newsgroup postings.

As some of you pointed out, in the manual it promises that DOS 5.00 
can restore backups from all previous DOS versions. The trouble to 
watch out for is 'assign'ed, 'join'ed, or 'subst'ed drives. I was 
also using PC-NFS 4.0a, which I believe has trouble with DOS's Restore.

So first I prepared a new set of boot files for my PC, clearing out 
anything that might cause a problem. Then I ran the restore, carefully 
using the correct syntax:

        restore a: c:\*.* /s

*Not* "restore a: c: /s", or "restore *.* c:"

And it worked fine. I spent quite a few hours before getting this right,
so thanks again for the support.

="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="
=Brian Milner, The Computer Centre, Brunel University, West London, UK   =
=brian.milner@brunel.ac.uk |OH no! Look at all the washing up to be done!=
="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="="
From: orenalex@bimacs.BITNET (Alex Oren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Is dos 6.0 gonna multitask? Or have no memory barrier????
Keywords: dos 6
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:59:40 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL



I have reliable inside information stating that DOS 17.0 will break
the 1MB barrier and DOS 23.0 will add preemptive multitasking.
The bugs and incompatibilities these features will spawn will be
cleared by the time we reach release 34.52d

The bottom line:
If you want an operating system which will:
- Address more than 1MB
- Multitask
- Run your old DOS software
- Have those goodies you allways wanted and DOS lacked
Use OS/2 or Win/NT or any other OS capable of the above
and forget about DOS.  What do you care about a name as long as the
features are right?


Arivederci,
  Alex.
From: kraai4712@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: CMOS Setup on Tandy 2500 XL?
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:24:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: iscsvax.1992Nov18.102441.8806
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

How do I get to the setup on a Tandy 2500 XL?

I get a message saying something like:
  "Invalid configuration, press <F1> to continue"

I unhooked my printer from LPT1 and am now using a switchbox on COM1.

Obvious question:  Are these related?  Why?

Thanks.  --jim
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Is dos 6.0 gonna multitask? Or have no memory barrier????
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:44:13 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>> Especially considered that IBM's newer version
>>> of OS/2 should be due out first Quarter '93, fixing bugs that are
>>> inherent in all versions of an OS.

>>You mean like NT was due out 4th Q/92? Riiiiiight. MS = More Slippage

>Not sure how you got IBM == MS, but they aren't even close.  We just
>got a Service Pack for OS/2, and there should be another one out at
>the end of the year (it's in Beta now).
*----
And while we're on that subject, OS/2 2.1beta shipped a few weeks
ago.  My $ 20 CD-ROM included the developer's tools, C compiler,
TCP package, etc.  Unfortunately, the license was good 'til November 15
or whenever the product is officially available.  Microsoft has never
offered me any such benefits.
--
	Mike Berger
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:6188 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:14747
From: kraai4712@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Detecting network cards
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:07:50 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I'm working with a number of PCs (mostly PS/2s) and need a way to detect
network cards.  What I'd like to do is have the autoexec.bat log the user in
(Novell Netware) if they are connected, and not even try if they're not. 
Checking for specific software on the local PC is not an option.

This would be nice, as I install the Novell software up to a month before the
hardware end of our unit gets around to installing the cards and bringing the
network connection up.
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Is dos 6.0 gonna multitask?  Or have no memory barrier????
Summary: Oh goody... Another Microsoft thread....
Date: 14 Nov 92 17:42:53 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Nov6.020133.29137@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jav2d@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jason Adams Vanvalkenburgh) writes:
> baloo@mik.uky.edu  writes:
> > Is dos 6.0 gonna multitask, and do away with the 640k memory barrier?
> > If not I won't believe it.  Dos has gotten so far behind the times.  I'm
> > completely sick and tire of 'out of memory messages'  I'll have to switch
> > to unix if dos 6.0 doesn't shape up.  

I switched to Unix. And I feel muuuuuuch better now. :)

> What about OS/2.  You get DOS, OS/2 and Windows compatability for a 
> lot cheaper tha unix. 

Ahem..... Allow me to present you with:

Coherant (if you can deal with nearly zero after market support unless
          you pay through the nose for it)

MWC (Decent from what I've been told and getting better)

Linux (Ask around. It has a loyal following on the net - see newsgroup
       comp.os.linux for more.)

> Especially considered that IBM's newer version
> of OS/2 should be due out first Quarter '93, fixing bugs that are
> inherent in all versions of an OS.

You mean like NT was due out 4th Q/92? Riiiiiight. MS = More Slippage

>  With DOS 6 who knows what you'll get.

Everyone knows what you get with any version of DOS. Another OS release
that will have bugs they don't want to acknowledge but will charge you
substantial $$$ to upgrade away from when they finally fix them. 

I really wonder if MS is aware that a substantial number of their
customers are aware of how OS's function beyond a fancy GUI? We're not
as stoopid [tm] as they think we are. 

Yes, I run DOS here and I also run CP/M-86 on a Seiko 8610 but my REAL
computer runs Unix and thanks me for it daily :)

-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |