How do I Upgrade MS Dos 5.0 to 6.22
Carl Joseph Winkler
I tried a full install of 6.22 after deleting 5.0 and got an error: not
enough memory for setup.exe (disk 1 of 6.22). I have 16M of RAM. Is this
something to do with the memory manager after booting from floppy? How do I
work around this problem? (I managed to restore 5.0 and am back to original
configuration.)
Thanks, Carl
carl...@texas.net
HaRRy
On 17 Feb 1998 01:19:44 GMT, carl...@texas.net (Carl Joseph Winkler)
expounded:
»I tried a full install of 6.22 after deleting 5.0 and got an error: not
»
It's Conventional Memory (the first 640K) that is in short supply. Temporarily
rename CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to something else (or move them to a
subdirectory). Then reboot from the hard drive -- this will boot the system as
cleanly as possible, with no drivers or TSRs cluttering memory (including those
mentioned in Chapter 1 of the MS-DOS 6.22 User's Guide). Now insert the SETUP
disk, type A: or B: to get to it, and type SETUP to run it.
Do not boot the SETUP disk.
Also make sure that you follow the directions
If this doesn't work, let us know with precise error messages and all steps
that you went through.
Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
--
(http://pages.prodigy.com/railHaRRy/)
(Anti-spam actions are required.
To e-mail reply change nospam.com to prodigy dot net)
Thorsten Matzner
carl...@texas.net (Carl Joseph Winkler) wrote:
>I tried a full install of 6.22 after deleting 5.0 and got an error: not
>enough memory for setup.exe (disk 1 of 6.22). I have 16M of RAM. Is this
>something to do with the memory manager after booting from floppy? How do I
>work around this problem? (I managed to restore 5.0 and am back to original
>configuration.)
I think, this problem is not related to the memory but to the
SETUP.EXE. If a file is defective, it may cause such errors. First you
should retry, but there is no need to delete MS-DOS v5.0. Just run
SETUP.EXE from the first installation disk. If SETUP refuses to run
due to the installed MS-DOS, reboot the PC while the first MS-DOS
v6.22 installation disk is in the floppy drive and SETUP should start
automatically (make sure, that the PC boots from the floppy drive).
If this all does not help, you should contact Microsoft (800-426-9400
in the US) for a replacement disk.
(tm)
mar...@pobox.com
I would not change the 5 with 6.22, for 6,22 is only the 5
with added some waste.
rail...@nospam.com (HaRRy) wrote:
>On 17 Feb 1998 01:19:44 GMT, carl...@texas.net (Carl Joseph Winkler)
>expounded:
>
>»I tried a full install of 6.22 after deleting 5.0 and got an error: not
>»enough memory for setup.exe (disk 1 of 6.22). I have 16M of RAM. Is this
>»something to do with the memory manager after booting from floppy? How do I
>»work around this problem? (I managed to restore 5.0 and am back to original
>»configuration.)
HaRRy
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:05:11 GMT, mar...@pobox.com expounded:
»I would not change the 5 with 6.22, for 6,22 is only the 5
»with added some waste.
Not true. Here is an excerpt from the Microsoft Knowledgebase article: Why
Should I Install MS-DOS 6.22? ID: Q105831
The MS-DOS 6.22 Upgrade includes the following new or enhanced features:
•Microsoft DriveSpace, with DoubleGuard
•Microsoft MemMaker
•Microsoft Backup
•Microsoft Anti-Virus
•Microsoft Undelete
•ScanDisk
•MultiConfig
•Interactive Start [<== reason enough alone to get the Upgrade]
•Microsoft Defragmenter
•MS-DOS Help
•Enhanced SMARTDrive
•Microsoft Diagnostics (MSD)
•Interlnk
•Enhanced Commands
The following paragraphs briefly describe these enhancements and their
benefits.
[See the article for more -- go to http://www.microsoft.com/support and search
on the article number, Q105831.]
S. Widlake
In article <34f6f26e....@news.prodigy.net>
rail...@prodigy.net(HaRRy) writes:
>On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:05:11 GMT, mar...@pobox.com expounded:
>
>»I would not change the 5 with 6.22, for 6,22 is only the 5
>»with added some waste.
With a good set of utilz, I agree. It isn't worth degrading to M$
DOS 6.xx
>Not true.
It's true.
>Here is an excerpt from the Microsoft Knowledgebase article: Why
>Should I Install MS-DOS 6.22? ID: Q105831
Usual M$ propogander.
>The MS-DOS 6.22 Upgrade includes the following new or enhanced features:
For "features" read "bugs" or accidents waiting to happen...
>•Microsoft DriveSpace, with DoubleGuard
Robs you of conventional memory and effectively encrypts all of your data
ready for any occuring disk problem to remove access to all of it.
Larger hard disks are cheap enough. Buy one.
>•Microsoft MemMaker
Isn't competant at managing your memory. Any decent tech. can do a better
job of managing your memory than this can. Additionally it is incompatible
with its own multiboot options.
>•Microsoft Backup
Is incompatible with its own previous versions and isn't even standard
across versions 6.xx due to using other people's code.
>•Microsoft Anti-Virus
Total CRAP !!! Nuf Sed.
>•Microsoft Undelete
Nothing new and doesn't work on directory entries. Trivial.
>•ScanDisk
About as useless as ChkDsk /F. What does the F stand for ? Well it
ain't 'fix', that's for sure.
>•MultiConfig
Incompatible with MemMucker. Nuf sed.
>•Interactive Start [<== reason enough alone to get the Upgrade]
Pass. I've seen a lot of DOS 6.xx and never even seen this.
>•Microsoft Defragmenter
With a good set of utilz this is a very poor attempt. Bought.
>•MS-DOS Help
Ha. Complete joke. Get your self a DOS 5 manual. The last version
that was at all useful.
>•Enhanced SMARTDrive
Not impressed. There's better available for less and with today's
bloated M$ code it's hardly worth it.
>•Microsoft Diagnostics (MSD)
That's a windoze thing, isn't it.
>•Interlnk
Laplink is available for nowt.
>•Enhanced Commands
With a good set of utilz these are, and were at the time, obsolete.
>The following paragraphs briefly describe these enhancements and their
>benefits.
>
>[See the article for more -- go to http://www.microsoft.com/support and search
>on the article number, Q105831.]
Good for a laugh... *If* you can get through.
>Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
Wanna try again ?
TaVLoC,
Off,
S.
- --
.sig II Found and Restored ...
Peter Gettys
>
> >•Microsoft Diagnostics (MSD)
>
> That's a windoze thing, isn't it.
>
> >•Interlnk
>
> Laplink is available for nowt.
>
> >•Enhanced Commands
>
> With a good set of utilz these are, and were at the time, obsolete.
>
> >The following paragraphs briefly describe these enhancements and their
> >benefits.
> >
> >[See the article for more -- go to http://www.microsoft.com/support and search
> >on the article number, Q105831.]
>
> Good for a laugh... *If* you can get through.
>
> >Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
>
> Wanna try again ?
>
> TaVLoC,
>
> Off,
>
> S.
>
> - --
> .sig II Found and Restored ...
Obviously this reply was from an genius ms just means microsoft DOS DOS
DOS msw is a WINDOWS utility such as mswav mswundelete to name a
few and give Microsoft its credit Dos is one of the best products for an
x86(although Windows is comparible to-- you get my point)
-Peter G.
HaRRy
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 22:41:18 GMT, Peter Gettys <syt...@webzone.net> expounded:
»
» Obviously this reply was from an genius ms just means microsoft DOS DOS
»DOS msw is a WINDOWS utility such as mswav mswundelete to name a
»few and give Microsoft its credit Dos is one of the best products for an
»x86(although Windows is comparible to-- you get my point)
»
»-Peter G.
Could you possibly put that into some sort of intelligible paragraph? I think
I might be interested in what you have to say, but the above is just about
completely gibberish
HaRRy
It's a shame I never saw the message from "S" directly. But thanks to Peter, I
see it now.
»S. Widlake wrote:
»>
»> In article <34f6f26e....@news.prodigy.net>
»> rail...@prodigy.net(HaRRy) writes:
»>
»> >On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:05:11 GMT, mar...@pobox.com expounded:
»> >
»> >»I would not change the 5 with 6.22, for 6,22 is only the 5
»> >»with added some waste.
»>
»> With a good set of utilz, I agree. It isn't worth degrading to M$
»> DOS 6.xx
Not true. A good set of separate utilities (that's the proper spelling, by the
way) costs money. MS-DOS 6.22 comes with those need and used by most MS-DOS
users, included, no extra cost.
»>
»> >Here is an excerpt from the Microsoft Knowledgebase article: Why
»> >Should I Install MS-DOS 6.22? ID: Q105831
»>
»> Usual M$ propogander.
Every company that produces a product releases some sorts of info about the
product. I fail to see why Microsoft shouldn't. The MSKB article is a useful
summary of enhancements and features of a product. Most people would be upset
if such a summary DIDN'T exist, but I guess you are so rabidly anti-Microsoft
that you can's see anything else by the red haze of your hatred.
»>
»> >The MS-DOS 6.22 Upgrade includes the following new or enhanced features:
»>
»> For "features" read "bugs" or accidents waiting to happen...
Not true. Your usual attempt to be cute, but just basic old fashion BS.
»>
»> >•Microsoft DriveSpace, with DoubleGuard
»>
»> Robs you of conventional memory and effectively encrypts all of your data
»> ready for any occuring disk problem to remove access to all of it.
When this MS-DOS was original released in 1994, large hard disks were
exceptionally expensive. Even today, larger hard disks are annoying to install
because of the (1) expense of having someone else do it, or (2) the hassle and
danger for _most_ people of doing it themselves. Disk compression, while
obviously not for everyone, is very valuable for a minority. And DriveSpace is
free.
I've used DoubleSpace and DriveSpace for years as have several of my
colleagues. No problems. That's ZERO problems. Meanwhile I and my company
were saved considerable hardware investment during a time when we couldn't
afford it.
All disk/file compression systems, including the ubiquitous PKZIP, "encrypts"
(not really) data. Anyone who doesn't do frequent backups of their data is
demonstrating masochism or stupidity. But as I said, we've never had a problem
and NEVER LOST ONE BYTE of data due to disk compression. I could say more
about this, but I already have at http://pages.prodigy.com/railHaRRy/ds_faq.htm
»> Larger hard disks are cheap enough. Buy one.
That is the solution for most people. Not necessarily for everyone. So you
are demonstrating your ignorance by even making that sweeping generalization.
»>
»> >•Microsoft MemMaker
»>
»> Isn't competant at managing your memory. Any decent tech. can do a better
»> job of managing your memory than this can. Additionally it is incompatible
»> with its own multiboot options.
True, but mostly irrelevant. MemMaker is extremely useful for most MS-DOS
users since MOST MS-DOS users aren't computer gurus/techs. MemMaker isn't
perfect by any means, but it's better than nothing, which is what the vast
majority of MS-DOS users would have otherwise.
And, it's free.
»>
»> >•Microsoft Backup
»>
»> Is incompatible with its own previous versions and isn't even standard
»> across versions 6.xx due to using other people's code.
Better than nothing. And free. Yes, MS Backup is pretty bad. But for many
people it is the only backup system they will have -- and thus extraordinarily
valuable.
»>
»> >•Microsoft Anti-Virus
»>
»> Total CRAP !!! Nuf Sed.
No not enough said (to use English). I agree with most people that MS made a
mistake including this and should have just recommended something better
(McAfee for example). Still, without it being in the package, a fair
percentage of MS-DOS users would have never had ANY antivirus.
»>
»> >•Microsoft Undelete
»>
»> Nothing new and doesn't work on directory entries. Trivial.
Why does being "new" matter? The point was it was included in the package as a
feature. Should it have been included earlier? Yes. Version 1.0 or
thereabouts should have had it. But including it in 6.x was again better than
nothing. And again, many if not most MS-DOS users don't have anything else to
do the same job, and don't know enough to get anything else.
»>
»> >•ScanDisk
»>
»> About as useless as ChkDsk /F. What does the F stand for ? Well it
»> ain't 'fix', that's for sure.
Oh me thinks that thou dost protest just to hear yourself type. One more time.
It's free with MS-DOS. It's infinitely better than nothing at all, which is
what most people would have. It IS better than ChkDsk and easier to use. And
you know what F stands for and the fact that SCANDISK _does_ fix some errors,
even if not all that NDD and others would fix. In fact SCANDISK was a VERY
significant enhancement to the MS-DOS package. It is clearly worth half the
cost all by itself.
Most MS-DOS users don't even know that other disk diagnostic software exists.
»>
»> >•MultiConfig
»>
»> Incompatible with MemMucker. Nuf sed.
One more time, it's free, and easy to use for those who want it. And once more
you seem to be more interested in using cutesy made-up words than stating
anything cogent. Those who had a need for a multiple configuration and took
the effort to create one, had no trouble getting it to work with MemMaker.
»>
»> >•Interactive Start [<== reason enough alone to get the Upgrade]
»>
»> Pass. I've seen a lot of DOS 6.xx and never even seen this.
Hmmm. Maybe your lack of good English usage is showing, or maybe you aren't as
smart about all this as you pretend to be. Does F8 ring any bells?
»>
»> >•Microsoft Defragmenter
»>
»> With a good set of utilz this is a very poor attempt. Bought.
Again. Which of the letters in the word "Free" don't you understand? MS
DEFRAG is not the best defragmenter around. Not by a long shot. But it's
included in the package, it does defragment, it's stable and safe, it's free,
and for most users there is utterly no need to look elsewhere.
»>
»> >•MS-DOS Help
»>
»> Ha. Complete joke. Get your self a DOS 5 manual. The last version
»> that was at all useful.
I have an MS-DOS 5.0 manual. So what. Most people, included a huge number of
MS-DOS 5.0 users, don't have the manual. MS-DOS HELP is (1) immediately and
always available, (2) free, (3) easy to use, (4) far, far, far better than
nothing at all.
The most important issue about MS-DOS HELP (just as it is about the Help and
documentation for most software today) is cost. If MS-DOS 6.x had to have a
full paper manual it could not have been sold for under $50 (under $40 many
places). It would have cost over $100, possibly approaching $150. Paper
manuals are EXTRAORDINARILY expensive to produce. In the case of MS-DOS, the
paper manual would have cost more to produce than the software did.
»>
»> >•Enhanced SMARTDrive
»>
»> Not impressed. There's better available for less and with today's
»7> bloated M$ code it's hardly worth it.
There are slightly better disk cache systems available for DOS systems. But
none of them are free and included in the package and 100% compatible with all
aspects of MS-DOS. Again, most MS-DOS users would have not had ANY disk cache
if SmartDrive where not included and installed with the software.
"Bloated" is a loaded term (do you understand what that means?). One person's
"bloat" is another's vital features. Apparently you don't understand that.
»>
»> >•Microsoft Diagnostics (MSD)
»>
»> That's a windoze thing, isn't it.
No. Demonstrating your knowledge of the MS-DOS 6.x package, eh?
»>
»> >•Interlnk
»>
»> Laplink is available for nowt.
What's a "nowt"? Laplink is not free and included in the package. In fact
laplink is downright expensive. InterLink fills a need, especially for users
on a budget.
»>
»> >•Enhanced Commands
»>
»> With a good set of utilz these are, and were at the time, obsolete.
"With a good set of" utilities (do you have spelling dyslexia or do you just
think misspelling things adds to the cogency of your comments?), one can do
lots of things -- including spending all that money for the "good set of"
utilities. The enhancements to MS-DOS commands added to MS-DOS 6.22 were (one
more time) FREE. And thus an important feature. This is a list of features,
after all.
»>
»> >The following paragraphs briefly describe these enhancements and their
»> >benefits.
»> >
»> >[See the article for more -- go to http://www.microsoft.com/support and search
»> >on the article number, Q105831.]
»>
»> Good for a laugh... *If* you can get through.
I'm sorry to hear that you have problems accessing the Microsoft web site. I
and a few million other users don't. Maybe that's because we can spell?
»>
»> >Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
»>
»> Wanna try again ?
I don't "wanna" anything. Would you care to add something intelligent to this
thread or are you unable to do that?
»>
»> TaVLoC,
»>
»> Off,
»>
»> S.
»>
»> - --
»> .sig II Found and Restored ...
Considering your childishly cute sig, I guess you aren't.
S. Widlake
In article <34FDD9...@webzone.net>
Peter Gettys <syt...@webzone.net> writes:
>S. Widlake wrote:
>
>> >On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:05:11 GMT, mar...@pobox.com expounded:
>> >
>> >膏 would not change the 5 with 6.22, for 6,22 is only the 5
>> >誦ith added some waste.
>>
>> With a good set of utilz, I agree. It isn't worth degrading to M$
>> DOS 6.xx
>
> Obviously this reply was from an genius ms just means microsoft DOS
>DOS DOS msw is a WINDOWS utility such as mswav mswundelete to name a
>few and give Microsoft its credit Dos is one of the best products for an
>x86 (although Windows is comparible to-- you get my point)
That's fine by Me... though a "." here and there would've been nice.
If it types like a spider and tawks like a spider, it's a...
DOS DOS DOS -beep-
Oops, sorry wrong ng.
Eeek,
S.;-)
S. Widlake
In article <350531d0...@news.prodigy.net>
rail...@prodigy.net (HaRRy) writes:
I'd let this pass [ see radio edit ] but awe, wat the hek...
>It's a shame I never saw the message from "S" directly. But thanks to Peter,
>I see it now.
Then get yerself a decent newsreader/IPS plus a clue or two might help.
The radio edit:
In article <350531d0...@news.prodigy.net>
rail...@prodigy.net (HaRRy) writes:
[Utter BS]
[snipped]
Transmission ends.
EOT.
S.;-)
The extended remix:
In article <350531d0...@news.prodigy.net>
rail...@prodigy.net (HaRRy) writes:
>»S. Widlake wrote:
>»>
>»> In article <34f6f26e....@news.prodigy.net>
>»> rail...@prodigy.net (HaRRy) writes:
>»>
>»> >On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:05:11 GMT, mar...@pobox.com expounded:
>»> >
>»> >»I would not change the 5 with 6.22, for 6,22 is only the 5
>»> >»with added some waste.
>»>
>»> With a good set of utilz, I agree. It isn't worth degrading to M$
>»> DOS 6.xx
>Not true. A good set of separate utilities (that's the proper spelling, by the
>way) costs money. MS-DOS 6.22 comes with those need and used by most MS-DOS
^^^^
You meant "needed". HTH ;-) [ Still not true though. ]
>users, included, no extra cost.
True. M/Any a sensible sod will already have a good set C:\UTILZ - as it is
on my HD, and why not, it saves on the PATH= - and degrading to DOS 6.xx to
get stuff that's *no* better than what you should already have at whatever
*past* cost isn't worth this *additional* cost.
As for included, no extra cost" - So if these are "included" just *what* are
you paying for ?
>»> >Here is an excerpt from the Microsoft Knowledgebase article: Why
>»> >Should I Install MS-DOS 6.22? ID: Q105831
>»>
>»> Usual M$ propogander.
>Every company that produces a product releases some sorts of info about the
>product. I fail to see why Microsoft shouldn't. The MSKB article is a useful
>summary of enhancements and features of a product.
Lies and propogander.
>Most people would be upset if such a summary DIDN'T exist,
Indeed. So that We know that We don't need it ASAP, without wasting...
[snip] Who gives...
>»> >The MS-DOS 6.22 Upgrade includes the following new or enhanced features:
>»>
>»> For "features" read "bugs" or accidents waiting to happen...
>Not true. Your usual attempt to be cute, but just basic old fashion BS.
Meow ;-) Purr, purr...
>»> >•Microsoft DriveSpace, with DoubleGuard
>»>
>»> Robs you of conventional memory and effectively encrypts all of your data
>»> ready for any occuring disk problem to remove access to all of it.
Robs you of conventional memory and *no* ammount of $$$ can buy you additional
conventional memory.
>When this MS-DOS was original released in 1994, large hard disks were
>exceptionally expensive. Even today, larger hard disks are annoying to install
>because of the (1) expense of having someone else do it, or (2) the hassle and
>danger for _most_ people of doing it themselves.
Rubbish. _Most_ poeple can follow instructions *or* decide that they would
rather not - do stuff that they're not confident about, like fly a plane -
and have the guy in the shop do it for them. Costs less than a planecrash.
>Disk compression, while obviously not for everyone, is very valuable for a
>minority.
P'raps. For a *minority*.
>And DriveSpace is free.
I think Micro$oft would disagree with that statement:
'M$ DOS 6.xx is free.' 'Tain't !
>I've used DoubleSpace and DriveSpace for years as have several of my
>colleagues. No problems. That's ZERO problems.
Well I've had do did several people out of this kinda shite - even though it
was directly against 'the rules' and that's been a damn pain in the butt...
... but doable, no thanks to M$.
>Meanwhile I and my company were saved considerable hardware investment during
>a time when we couldn't afford it.
Poor you.
>All disk/file compression systems, including the ubiquitous PKZIP, "encrypts"
>(not really) data. Anyone who doesn't do frequent backups of their data is
>demonstrating masochism or stupidity.
But PKZIP doesn't crash midway through opperations losing access to *all*
of your data. ie. the work you've just spent doing today, toweek, tomonth
and have to spend even more downtime needlessly getting it all again.
>But as I said, we've never had a problem and NEVER LOST ONE BYTE of data due
>to disk compression.
GooD FoR YoU. 'What about us ?' [ Genesis NEC 25th - FAB ! (c: ]
>I could say more about this [snip]. Tripe.
>»> Larger hard disks are cheap enough. Buy one.
>That is the solution for most people. Not necessarily for everyone. So you
>are demonstrating your ignorance by even making that sweeping generalization.
The *only* exception: Ancient propietry portables. Ignorant ? Me ? ;-)
Large skip: Have. Pentium II portables are so KOO1 ! (c:
>»> >•Microsoft MemMaker
>»>
>»> Isn't competant at managing your memory. Any decent tech. can do a better
>»> job of managing your memory than this can. Additionally it is incompatible
>»> with its own multiboot options.
>True,
Correct.
>but mostly irrelevant.
Not.
MemMaker is extremely useful for most MS-DOS
>users since MOST MS-DOS users aren't computer gurus/techs. MemMaker isn't
>perfect by any means, but it's better than nothing, which is what the vast
>majority of MS-DOS users would have otherwise.
Most users can follow a simple set of instructions or are sensible enough
to know: 'it ain't broken, it don't need fixin' or 'damn, it don't work no
longer. I'll call someone to fix it'. NOTHING *is* better than memmucker
if it screws your multiboot so that it won't.
>And, it's free.
I think Micro$oft would disagree with that statement:
'M$ DOS 6.xx is free.' 'Tain't !
>»> >•Microsoft Backup
>»>
>»> Is incompatible with its own previous versions and isn't even standard
>»> across versions 6.xx due to using other people's code.
>Better than nothing. And free. Yes, MS Backup is pretty bad. But for many
>people it is the only backup system they will have -- and thus extraordinarily
>valuable.
I think Micro$oft would disagree with that statement:
'M$ DOS 6.xx is free.' 'Tain't !
M/Any ordinary people can get a hold of complete copies of and use PK ZIP
and/or - the so much better - RJ ARJ.
ARJ A D:archive.A01 *.* -JM -V1440R120K -S -Y
>»> >•Microsoft Anti-Virus
>»>
>»> Total CRAP !!! Nuf Sed.
Ask *any* even half competant AV tech.
>No not enough said (to use English). I agree with most people that MS made
>a mistake including this and should have just recommended something better
>(McAfee for example).
F-Prot is better (and *it* is FREE for personal use). Have you got your name
in MackAfee's AV tool ? (c:
>Still, without it being in the package, a fair percentage of MS-DOS users
>would have never had ANY antivirus.
No. A fair percentage of MS-DOS users think that since they already have an
AV tool they don't need another one and then wonder why they get ripped.
>»> >•Microsoft Undelete
>»>
>»> Nothing new and doesn't work on directory entries. Trivial.
>Why does being "new" matter? The point was it was included in the package as a
>feature. Should it have been included earlier? Yes. Version 1.0 or
>thereabouts should have had it. But including it in 6.x was again better than
>nothing. And again, many if not most MS-DOS users don't have anything else to
>do the same job, and don't know enough to get anything else.
Since it should have been included earlier, it was built into virtually
every utilz package that already existed ---- *including* DOS 5.0 !!!
It was *NOT* a DOS 6.xx enhancement !!! This a blatent *LIE* by Micro$*[t
backed up by the obviously totally clueless and blind M$ worshipers !!!
>»> >•ScanDisk
>»>
>»> About as useless as ChkDsk /F. What does the F stand for ? Well it
>»> ain't 'fix', that's for sure.
>Oh me thinks that thou dost protest just to hear yourself type. One more time.
>It's free with MS-DOS.
One more time: M$ DOS 6.xx is *NOT* free.
It's infinitely better than nothing at all, which is
>what most people would have. It IS better than ChkDsk and easier to use.
It is only a *tiny* bit better than ChkDsk. Unfortunately ChkDsk is only good
for losing lost clusters though ScanDisk does look pretty. Shame about the
underlying product.
>And you know what F stands for
Yeah: if you don't like the look of anything on the HD, _Fling_ it.
> and the fact that SCANDISK _does_ fix some errors,
>even if not all that NDD and others would fix.
"While NDD can be spectaclular in its sucesses, it can also be equally
spectacular in its failures." - BPB
In fact SCANDISK was a VERY
>significant enhancement to the MS-DOS package. It is clearly worth half the
>cost all by itself.
Now tell Us that all of the data on some HD is worth less than a good set of
utilz OR taking the trouble to find someone that does have some - and knows
how to drive them - and I'll show you a HD of data that can be trusted to a
util. that is worth trusting so very little.
>Most MS-DOS users don't even know that other disk diagnostic software exists.
TaVLoC.
>»> >•MultiConfig
>»>
>»> Incompatible with MemMucker. Nuf sed.
>One more time, it's free, and easy to use for those who want it.
I think Micro$oft would disagree with that statement:
'M$ DOS 6.xx is free.' 'Tain't !
And once more
>you seem to be more interested in using cutesy made-up words than stating
>anything cogent.
Waaahhh ! Mommie, that sad old senile git's on a whiner again...
> Those who had a need for a multiple configuration and took
>the effort to create one, had no trouble getting it to work with MemMaker.
I'm telling you that they did have trouble. A lot of trouble.
>»> >•Interactive Start [<== reason enough alone to get the Upgrade]
>»>
>»> Pass. I've seen a lot of DOS 6.xx and never even seen this.
[Yet more whining stuff snipped] Does F8 ring any bells?
Oh that. Never heard it called that before.
>»> >•Interactive Start [<== reason enough alone to get the Upgrade]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !
Nice one ! You got any more like that ? ;-)
>»> >•Microsoft Defragmenter
>»>
>»> With a good set of utilz this is a very poor attempt. Bought.
>Again. Which of the letters in the word "Free" don't you understand? MS
You're forgetting about the one's that you're implying go before the word
"Free".
'M$ DOS 6.xx is... '
'Tain't !
I think Micro$oft would disagree with this statement.
Don't you understand ? T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. - Remember now ?
>DEFRAG is not the best defragmenter around. Not by a long shot. But it's
>included in the package, it does defragment, it's stable and safe, it's free,
>and for most users there is utterly no need to look elsewhere.
I think Micro$oft would disagree with that statement:
'M$ DOS 6.xx is free.' 'Tain't !
So *all* of these DOS 6.xx enhancements are "Free", are they ? So what *are*
you paying for ??? Why don't you just *give* your money away ?
>»> >•MS-DOS Help
>»>
>»> Ha. Complete joke. Get your self a DOS 5 manual. The last version
>»> that was at all useful.
>I have an MS-DOS 5.0 manual. So what.
The MS DOS 6.xx is gawd awful. That's what.
>Most people, included a huge number of MS-DOS 5.0 users, don't have the
>manual.
I know. It's a "much desired" item... and we're not allowed to cut their
little thieving hands off in this country.
>MS-DOS HELP is (1) immediately and always available,
'Cept when the PC goes balls up and won't boot and you have no friends.
>(2) free,
<sigh>
>(3) easy to use, (4) far, far, far better than nothing at all.
... Apart from a proper DOS manual.
>The most important issue about MS-DOS HELP (just as it is about the Help and
>documentation for most software today) is cost.
You mean it's *NOT* FREE ??? Now there's a surprise !
[Non sensical figures plucked out of a chicken's behind snipped]
>»> >•Enhanced SMARTDrive
>»>
>»> Not impressed. There's better available for less and with today's
>»7> bloated M$ code it's hardly worth it.
^
( Huh ? where did *that* come from ;-)
>There are slightly better disk cache systems available for DOS systems. But
>none of them are free
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And neither is MS DOS 6.xx !
>"Bloated" is a loaded term (do you understand what that means?).
Yep. It means that the programmers are paid in K-locks and *not* to write
tight, fast, efficient code.
Apparently you don't understand that.
>»> >•Microsoft Diagnostics (MSD)
>»>
>»> That's a windoze thing, isn't it.
C:\WINDOZE>dir msd.*
Volume in drive C is TOO LOUD
Directory of C:\WINDOZE
MSD EXE 155538 10/03/92 3:10
MSD INI 620 10/03/92 3:10
2 file(s) 156158 bytes
>No. Demonstrating your knowledge of the MS-DOS 6.x package, eh?
Yes. Demonstrating your lack of knowledge...
Don't use the M$ DOS 6.xx package... it wasn't worth degrading to.
Eh?
>»> >•Interlnk
>»>
>»> Laplink is available for nowt.
>
>What's a "nowt"? Laplink is not free and included in the package. In fact
>laplink is downright expensive. InterLink fills a need, especially for users
>on a budget.
It's a small swimming thing. Flies fly so I suppose you could also call it a
swim. Take a swim around the .NET and you'll be reliably informed that laplink
is available(*). What's up ? Don't you know any reliable informants ?
(*) This could be a lie. I can't ( or won't ;-) tell you right now.
>»> >•Enhanced Commands
>»>
>»> With a good set of utilz these are, and were at the time, obsolete.
>"With a good set of" utilities (do you have spelling dyslexia or do you just
>think misspelling things adds to the cogency of your comments?),
I'm done with skool and got all the Eng. Lang. cerstificates poss. Did you
know that even Shakespear spelt his own name about 40 different ways ?
Anyway, you're right. It covers up the typoz, I somteimes make, kwite will.
> one can do
>lots of things -- including spending all that money for the "good set of"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Like word processing, spreadsheets, database work, mail, programming...
You have to pay *more* money for *all* of these things and a good set of
apps. and progz should also include a good set of xx-DOS, disk and file
management utilz.
>utilities. The enhancements to MS-DOS commands added to MS-DOS 6.22 were
>(one more time) FREE.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<sigh> So what were you paying your money for then, fresh air ???
>And thus an important feature. This is a list of features, after all.
This was a list of reasons to *BUY* MS DOS 6.xx.
What was that about FREE again ?
Have you always been this stupid or do you practice at going senile on a
regular basis ? ;-)
>»> Good for a laugh... *If* you can get through.
>
>I'm sorry to hear that you have problems accessing the Microsoft web site.
>I and a few million other users don't. Maybe that's because we can spell?
Yeah, I'll bet you are <s>.
>»> >Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
>»>
>»> Wanna try again ?
>
>I don't "wanna" anything. Would you care to add something intelligent to this
>thread or are you unable to do that?
Then what was all of your gushing to defend M$ all about then, Huh ?
With a good set of utilz it isn't worth degrading from M$ DOS 5.0 to
M$ DOS 6.xx.
WithOUT a good set of utilz...
Open(DR)DOS 7.02
Better and...
FREE (for personal use) !
>»> - --
>»> .sig II Found and Restored...
>Considering your childishly cute sig, I guess you aren't.
Que ? No comprendo, el senior.
TaVLoC,
Eeek,
Off,
EOT
Effing viruses. Let's nuke Bulgaria ! ;-)
S.;-)