Rcpt: DOS 6.0 and Stacker
DHJ
The following message has been deleted.
> I just acquired DOS 6 and plan to install it this weekend. I am
> now running 5.0 with Stacker 2.0 without any problems. However,
> since I prefer to stay with one vendor rather than two, I plan to
> convert from Stacker to Doublespace. I have two options: order
>
> Any advice from any of you who have done either technique?
>
Tam,
Don't do it!! I have heard some problems with people using
doublespace. Stacker is a solid program. I also use DOS 6 with Stacker
3 with no problems at all. MS is stepping into some new territory with
some of these utilities, and they admit that there are products out
there that are better than their utilities, such as the Stacker issue.
Good Luck in whatever you do!!
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| MMMM /KKK\ | MICHAEL CURTIS |
| M M K K | FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY |
| M M M M K K EEEEEE | LAN ADMIN. ASSISTANT |
| M M M ' KKKK E E | |
| M M M I K K EEEE | BITNET: F1...@FERRIS.BITNET |
| M M___/ \_KK K____E EEE | GRAIL: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! |
| FLETCH: PARDON ME MA'AM CAN I BORROW YOUR TOWEL MY CAR JUST |
| HIT A WATER BUFFALO. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------- Original message header:
>From @uga.cc.uga.edu:WIN...@UICVM.BITNET Thu 29 Apr 1993 15:05
>X-Envelope-To: DHJ....@mhs.unc.edu
>Return-Path: <@uga.cc.uga.edu:WIN...@UICVM.BITNET
>Received: from mento.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.22.70]) by mhs.unc.edu
(SMTPSRV); Thu 29 Apr 1993 15:05
>Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by mento.oit.unc.edu (NeXT-1.0 (From
Sendmail 5.52)/TAS/11-16-88)
> id AA12543; Thu, 29 Apr 93 15:07:34 EDT
>Message-Id: <930429190...@mento.oit.unc.edu>
>Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
> with BSMTP id 9310; Thu, 29 Apr 93 15:03:45 EDT
>Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by
UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2216; Thu, 29 Apr 1993
15:03:44 -0400
>Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:04:03 EST
>Reply-To: Microsoft Windows Version 3 Forum
<WIN3-L%UICVM....@uga.cc.uga.edu
>Sender: Microsoft Windows Version 3 Forum
<WIN3-L%UICVM....@uga.cc.uga.edu>
>From: Cooter <F145%FERRIS...@uga.cc.uga.edu
>Subject: DOS 6.0 and Stacker
>X-To: WIN...@UICVM.BITNET, go...@CS.WASHINGTON.EDU
>To: Multiple recipients of list WIN3-L
<WIN3-L%UICVM....@uga.cc.uga.edu>
>In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of WED 28 APR 1993 21:27:04 EST
------------------------- End of message header:
Jeremy Rule
I agree fully with you!
Paying the 40+ bucks for DOS 6.0 is a far better deal than buying trouble
ridden QEMM, Stacker, and PC-TOOLS.
I have had nothing but problems with QEMM. Everything from 'memory parity
errors' to incompatibilites with large programs - like MicroProse.
I am using right now DOS 6.0 with ndos by Norton, I have to 30k TSR's for my CD-
ROM,
and a lot of other large TSR's like Smartdrv and Doublespace all loaded high
and I have 624.1k free memory. One trick I've found is to use Memmaker to load
all the BIG TSR's high, and then use plain LOADHIGH, and DEVICEHIGH statments
to put things like SETVER and ANSISYS high.
BTW: I think this anti-Microsoft propaganda is mostly political.
Jim Odom, PC Tech
> > now running 5.0 with Stacker 2.0 without any problems. However,
> > since I prefer to stay with one vendor rather than two, I plan to
> > convert from Stacker to Doublespace. I have two options: order
> >
> > Any advice from any of you who have done either technique?
> >
> Tam,
> Don't do it!! I have heard some problems with people using
> doublespace. Stacker is a solid program. I also use DOS 6 with Stacker
> 3 with no problems at all. MS is stepping into some new territory with
> some of these utilities, and they admit that there are products out
> there that are better than their utilities, such as the Stacker issue.
>
> Good Luck in whatever you do!!
>
I agree. I installed DOS 6 and DoubleSpace last week. As soon as I can get to
the store to purchase Stacker 3.0 I will switch to that and back to DOS 5.
I haven't had any problems with cross-linked files or anything like that. But,
I went from 631K free conventional RAM with DOS 5 and 386MAX to 535K with DOS6
and MemMaker. The major offender is DoubleSpace drivers. I went back to 386MAX
and am up to 570K but this is still not acceptable.
One thing I have not seen addressed on any list is the fact that DoubleSpace
does not support SmartDrive disk caching. I am running a 486/33 with 8Megs and
it is slowed tremendously when SmartDrive is not loaded.
If anyone knows a way around this or why (I assume you can cache a Stacked
drive?!?!) this happens please let me know.
TTYL
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jim Odom
= || || || || = Personal Computer Technician
= ||=-=|| || || = New Mexico Highlands University
= || ||o ||=-=||o = Las Vegas, NM 87701
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Voice:(505)454-3007 Fax:(505)454-1916
VAX username: JIMBO
Internet:ji...@merlin.nmhu.edu
Maurice H. Rich.
so-called "problems" with Dos6, but none have yet been documented. The
same for the so-called "bugs",.. nil yet documented. ALL the complaints
so far have been from existing users of Memory saving, drive space saving
s/wares such as QEMM/386Max/Stacker/Superstor who have found Dos6 to be
inferior by comparison. Good !! if it does Not compare, go back to what
you were using. A lot of these comments have also not been firsthand (ie
hearsay !) I get a little annoyed with these preludes to rumourmongering.
Me, I don't have keep up with the joneses (not being a prolific user of
QEMM/686Max/Stacker/SuperStor because of pricing !) ... and Am more than
satisfied with Dos6 which I have had running for over 4 weeks with Win3.1
on about 3-4 machines with NO problems. BTW both MeMMaker and DBLSpace
are s/w licensed by MS from other vendors. MS has supplied the
links/interfaces to integrate them together. I could be equally
disgruntled with QEMM and stacker and ALL the hassles I have had trying to
make them co-exist successfully with Netware and TCP/IP s/w (something Dos
6 did from the word Go !). So more REAL problems (fully documented) and
better still (!!...) some solutions that you have discovered.
PS.. PCTools does even rate mention ... why produce software that is NOT
backwards compatible with previous versions !! ...
Maurice H. Rich mau...@gu.edu.au | M.R...@ens.gu.edu.au
Technical Officer (Computing) | Ph +61 7 875 7489
Faculty of Environmental Sciences | Fax +61 7 875 7459
Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4122
"It's Fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an
hour!"
-- Macy's
On Thu, 6 May 1993, Jeremy Rule wrote:
> To: Multiple recipients of list WIN3-L <WIN...@UICVM.BITNET>
> Subject: Re: Rcpt: DOS 6.0 and Stacker
Jim Odom, PC Tech
> I agree also,... I have seen many blanket generic statements about
> so-called "problems" with Dos6, but none have yet been documented. The
> same for the so-called "bugs",.. nil yet documented.
Look at the May 3rd edition of InfoWorld. Twenty percent of the tested machines
had serious problems with SoubleSpace.
> ALL the complaints
> so far have been from existing users of Memory saving, drive space saving
> s/wares such as QEMM/386Max/Stacker/Superstor who have found Dos6 to be
> inferior by comparison. Good !! if it does Not compare, go back to what
> you were using.
Hissssssssss!!!!
> A lot of these comments have also not been firsthand (ie
> hearsay !) I get a little annoyed with these preludes to rumourmongering.
> Me, I don't have keep up with the joneses (not being a prolific user of
> QEMM/686Max/Stacker/SuperStor because of pricing !) ... and Am more than
> satisfied with Dos6 which I have had running for over 4 weeks with Win3.1
> on about 3-4 machines with NO problems. BTW both MeMMaker and DBLSpace
> are s/w licensed by MS from other vendors. MS has supplied the
> links/interfaces to integrate them together. I could be equally
> disgruntled with QEMM and stacker and ALL the hassles I have had trying to
> make them co-exist successfully with Netware and TCP/IP s/w (something Dos
> 6 did from the word Go !). So more REAL problems (fully documented) and
> better still (!!...) some solutions that you have discovered.
Hey, We're all entitled to our opinions. I am using DOS 6 w/ DblSpace now. I
am not happy with it. But I am sincerely extatic that you are happy. I went
from 631K to 570K free conventionl memory while still using 386Max. I can live
with it but I'm not happy. I can't run some of my most important (and only DOS
based) applications such as FrontPage Sports Football :) Now I guess it's time
to ask why there are still no great (my opinion only) Windows based games. All
of my good games are DOS based.
Well Maurice, I hope I documented my problems and I hope all is well.
Personally, I can't wait for Windows4/Dos7 or whatever it will be called.
> Maurice H. Rich mau...@gu.edu.au | M.R...@ens.gu.edu.au
> Technical Officer (Computing) | Ph +61 7 875 7489
> Faculty of Environmental Sciences | Fax +61 7 875 7459
> Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4122
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jim Odom
Mike Lieberman
experiences were a little unusual. I have installed DOS 6.0 on at least
that number of machines and had not had a problem,-- until may 5.
I got a call from a site I support, a print shop. They run Win4WG,
Pagemaker, CorelDraw and unfortunately Paintbrush IV ( a DOS graphic app
that supports their scanner). They had installed DoubleSpace on their twin
210 MB IDE drives. All was well for about two weeks and then on May 5 they
shelled out from Windows to run Paintbrush IV. Within 2 hours much of
their C: drive was unreadable or damaged. Only reformating got them back
up and fortunately they had a tape backup of the work. Since I have seen
equally horrendous problems with Stacker, I'm not ready to call for a
general lynching of Microsoft, but there's no question that DoubleSpace is
not bulletproof. The problem is that when such a product is sold as part
of the OS is really *must* be bulletproof. Marketing pressure is
understandable but this was probably a bad technology decision. Keeping
the disk compression out of the operating system meant that those who
purchased it understood that as with all-add on disk management utilities,
you run some risks, putting it in the DOS package has led many to believe
that there aren't any risks.
************************************************************************
* Michael Lieberman Internet: cwml...@antelope.wcc.edu *
* Voice Phone: 307-856-9096 *
* File:REALITY.SYS corrupted Direct Data Line: 307-856-3601 *
* Abort, Retry, Ignore? Mail:418 Westchester, Riverton, WY 82501*
************************************************************************
Maurice H. Rich.
> To: Multiple recipients of list WIN3-L <WIN...@UICVM.BITNET>
> Subject: Re: Rcpt: DOS 6.0 and Stacker
>
> > I agree also,... I have seen many blanket generic statements about
> > so-called "problems" with Dos6, but none have yet been documented. The
> > same for the so-called "bugs",.. nil yet documented.
>
> Look at the May 3rd edition of InfoWorld. Twenty percent of the tested
machines
> had serious problems with SoubleSpace.
No Jim, what have YOU experienced !! Others are already raising doubts
about the integrity of the InfoWorld tests ....
> > ALL the complaints
> > so far have been from existing users of Memory saving, drive space saving
> > s/wares such as QEMM/386Max/Stacker/Superstor who have found Dos6 to be
> > inferior by comparison. Good !! if it does Not compare, go back to what
> > you were using.
>
> Hissssssssss!!!!
I still standby this statement. your comments are hearsay in terms of
specific failures and breakages, firsthand in terms of coming from
previous Memspace/diskspace saving utils. I DON'T have the budget to buy
3rd party independent utils such as these. Now they are bundled with the
OS for a pittance !! I have an increasing number of machines successfully
running Dos 6/DblSpace with NO problems. Keeping track of one piece of
software (for licensing/copyright purposes) is significantly easier than
tracking three seperate pieces of s/w.
> > A lot of these comments have also not been firsthand (ie
> > hearsay !) I get a little annoyed with these preludes to rumourmongering.
> > Me, I don't have keep up with the joneses (not being a prolific user of
> > QEMM/686Max/Stacker/SuperStor because of pricing !) ... and Am more than
> > satisfied with Dos6 which I have had running for over 4 weeks with Win3.1
> > on about 3-4 machines with NO problems. BTW both MeMMaker and DBLSpace
> > are s/w licensed by MS from other vendors. MS has supplied the
> > links/interfaces to integrate them together. I could be equally
> > disgruntled with QEMM and stacker and ALL the hassles I have had trying to
> > make them co-exist successfully with Netware and TCP/IP s/w (something Dos
> > 6 did from the word Go !). So more REAL problems (fully documented) and
> > better still (!!...) some solutions that you have discovered.
>
>
> Hey, We're all entitled to our opinions. I am using DOS 6 w/ DblSpace now. I
> am not happy with it. But I am sincerely extatic that you are happy. I went
> from 631K to 570K free conventionl memory while still using 386Max. I can live
> with it but I'm not happy. I can't run some of my most important (and only DOS
> based) applications such as FrontPage Sports Football :) Now I guess it's time
> to ask why there are still no great (my opinion only) Windows based games. All
> of my good games are DOS based.
I'm running a 486dx33 with 16mb Ram and 200mb maxtor HDD. I've got 4dos
4.02 over Dos 6. I run mostly Win 3.1 on this, out of which I constantly
(read concurrently) run Dropper, backdesk, BigDesk, Screenpeace, Almanac,
Todo, Super TaskManager, Whoop-It-Up, WP4Win 5.2, ExCel 4.0, Kermit 3.1, Shez
8.9 ... I am constantly shelling out to Dos(4Dos) from Kermit & Shez ... During
Lunch, I often have TaiPei/Solitaire/World Empire running as well. I am
thrashing the Guts out of it trying to make it break. (I have had a severe
dose of Dos paranoia since Dos v4.0 !!).
>
> Well Maurice, I hope I documented my problems and I hope all is well.
> Personally, I can't wait for Windows4/Dos7 or whatever it will be called.
Try WIN NT .... we've been driving the October and now March Beta for a
while. Very impressive !!
Maurice H. Rich.
> To: Multiple recipients of list WIN3-L <WIN...@UICVM.BITNET>
> Subject: Re: Rcpt: DOS 6.0 and Stacker
>
> I also read the May 3, 1993 InfoWorld article and thought that their
> experiences were a little unusual. I have installed DOS 6.0 on at least
> that number of machines and had not had a problem,-- until may 5.
>
> I got a call from a site I support, a print shop. They run Win4WG,
> Pagemaker, CorelDraw and unfortunately Paintbrush IV ( a DOS graphic app
> that supports their scanner). They had installed DoubleSpace on their twin
> 210 MB IDE drives. All was well for about two weeks and then on May 5 they
> shelled out from Windows to run Paintbrush IV. Within 2 hours much of
> their C: drive was unreadable or damaged. Only reformating got them back
> up and fortunately they had a tape backup of the work. Since I have seen
> equally horrendous problems with Stacker, I'm not ready to call for a
> general lynching of Microsoft, but there's no question that DoubleSpace is
> not bulletproof. The problem is that when such a product is sold as part
> of the OS is really *must* be bulletproof. Marketing pressure is
> understandable but this was probably a bad technology decision. Keeping
> the disk compression out of the operating system meant that those who
> purchased it understood that as with all-add on disk management utilities,
> you run some risks, putting it in the DOS package has led many to believe
> that there aren't any risks.
>
I am pretty sure that the DOS 6 manual gives explicit outlined warnings and
instructions with regards to limitations and potential problems with DOS
6's MemMaker and DblSpace. Personally, I've had NO problems yet on a
growing number of machines which I have COMPLETE control over. I think
the Key thing with ANY software of this nature is that you are TOTALLY
familiar with all of its components and completely confident in its
integrity prior to installation of ANY new System software or system
utilities. Prior to installing Dos 6 on any machine, I have taken the
following precautions.
1) Backup ...
2) Backup again ! ...
3) Virus check (I use F-Prot) ...
4) SpinRite/Disk Technician Gold/Whatever ....
5) Norton's Disk Doctor.
Many reports of "problems" experienced by Dos 6 installs clearly point to
a possible problem because the user has not insured the integrity of the
system using steps 4 & 5 above !! ...
I am still not satisfied with the claims of people who have had problems
with Dos 6 !! I have had significantly more prtoblems with other nameless
software costing significantly more dollars ! ...
Maurice H. Rich mau...@gu.edu.au | M.R...@ens.gu.edu.au
Technical Officer (Computing) | Ph +61 7 875 7489
Faculty of Environmental Sciences | Fax +61 7 875 7459
Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4122
I have seen the future and it is just like the present, only longer.
-- Kehlog Albran, "The Profit"
Jim Odom, PC Tech
> >
> > Look at the May 3rd edition of InfoWorld. Twenty percent of the tested
> machines
>
> No Jim, what have YOU experienced !! Others are already raising doubts
> about the integrity of the InfoWorld tests ....
>
CHILL OUT ! I was just trying to relate MY experiences with DOS 6. You
asked for documentation. I have not loaded DOS 6 on multiple machines in my
labs or in my office due to my experience at home AND what I have read in trade
magazines. I make many decisions based on what I read in InfoWorld, PC Week,
LanTimes, PC Magazine, Windows Magazine and others. I was only trying to relay
this info to others who were interested. Obviously you were not. I am sorry.
> > > ALL the complaints
> > > so far have been from existing users of Memory saving, drive space saving
> > > s/wares such as QEMM/386Max/Stacker/Superstor who have found Dos6 to be
> > > inferior by comparison. Good !! if it does Not compare, go back to what
> > > you were using.
> >
> > Hissssssssss!!!!
>
> I still standby this statement. your comments are hearsay in terms of
> specific failures and breakages, firsthand in terms of coming from
> previous Memspace/diskspace saving utils. I DON'T have the budget to buy
> 3rd party independent utils such as these. Now they are bundled with the
> OS for a pittance !! I have an increasing number of machines successfully
> running Dos 6/DblSpace with NO problems. Keeping track of one piece of
> software (for licensing/copyright purposes) is significantly easier than
> tracking three seperate pieces of s/w.
>
I NEVER said that you (or anyone else) should not use DOS 6. Again, I was only
relaying my personal experience. You said you wanted documentation, I gave it
to you. You obviously did not really want to hear this either. Again, I
apologize.
> > > A lot of these comments have also not been firsthand (ie
> > > hearsay !) I get a little annoyed with these preludes to rumourmongering.
I don't agree that quoting a trade mag such as InfoWorld should be considered
"Rumormongering."
I have the March Beta of NT but I'm in need of RAM. I'm running 8MB and need 16
(or 20 according to Bill). I am looking forward to trying it out for myself. I
did see it running on an Alpha, but MS did a poor job of setting it up. All it
was running was a fractal generator, granted there were 6 instances of it, but
still needed some work. I'll let you know when I get it running.
I CAN'T WAIT!!!!
> > > Maurice H. Rich mau...@gu.edu.au | M.R...@ens.gu.edu.au
> > > Technical Officer (Computing) | Ph +61 7 875 7489
> > > Faculty of Environmental Sciences | Fax +61 7 875 7459
> > > Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4122
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jim Odom