PC-DOS vs MSDOS ?
Handy Trisakti
I'd like to hear from PC-DOS users about PC-DOS 6.x performance..
How's this OS compare to MSDOS ?? IBM claims that it's ~10% faster etc..
Any incompatibility issue ??
thanks
>> Handy Trisakti
>> uc53...@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Michael Gillespie
HT>ÿ@SUBJECT:PC-DOS vs MSDOS ? N
>I'd like to hear from PC-DOS users about PC-DOS 6.x performance..
>How's this OS compare to MSDOS ?? IBM claims that it's ~10% faster etc..
>Any incompatibility issue ??
It is a far superior product. Compatibility? With what? The code IBM starts
with IS Microsoft. IBM then optimizes and recompiles it using the
(non-Microsoft) Waterloo C compiler. They offer more and better utilities.
They provide SuperStor disk compression (far better than DoubleSpace).
On the other hand, if you want the 'best' DOS, pickup a copy of DOS 7.0
from Novell! It is only US$99 from 1-800-395-2480 or US$39 as an upgrade
from DR DOS or NetWare Lite.
We've been using it for almost 9 months and have been VERY happy!
Michael.
---
þ SLMR 2.1c þ The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
----
Muddy Waters Computer Society Inc. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
(204)943-6507,08,09 (204)942-0227 (204)956-4997 (all nodes USR 16.8K D/S)
Scott Ehrlich
>To:UC53...@mizzou1.missouri.edu
>
>HT>ÿ@SUBJECT:PC-DOS vs MSDOS ? N
>>I'd like to hear from PC-DOS users about PC-DOS 6.x performance..
>>How's this OS compare to MSDOS ?? IBM claims that it's ~10% faster etc..
>>Any incompatibility issue ??
>
>It is a far superior product. Compatibility? With what? The code IBM starts
>with IS Microsoft. IBM then optimizes and recompiles it using the
>(non-Microsoft) Waterloo C compiler. They offer more and better utilities.
>They provide SuperStor disk compression (far better than DoubleSpace).
>
>On the other hand, if you want the 'best' DOS, pickup a copy of DOS 7.0
>from Novell! It is only US$99 from 1-800-395-2480 or US$39 as an upgrade
>from DR DOS or NetWare Lite.
>
>We've been using it for almost 9 months and have been VERY happy!
With MS-DOS 6.2 freely FTPable from Microsoft, can you please give some
examples of what the $100 for Novell DOS 7.0 provides over MS-DOS 6.2?
Thanks.
>
>Michael.
>---
>þ SLMR 2.1c þ The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
>
>----
>Muddy Waters Computer Society Inc. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
>(204)943-6507,08,09 (204)942-0227 (204)956-4997 (all nodes USR 16.8K D/S)
--
===============================================================================
| Scott Ehrlich Internet: wy...@neu.edu BITNET: wy1z@NUHUB |
| Amateur Radio: wy1z AX.25: wy...@k1ugm.ma.usa.na |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Maintainer of the Boston Amateur Radio Club hamradio FTP area on |
| the World - world.std.com pub/hamradio |
===============================================================================
Michael Gillespie
>> IBM then optimizes and recompiles it using the
>> (non-Microsoft) Waterloo C compiler. They offer more and better
>> utilities.
JI>Other than SuperStor (which you mention below), which more and better
>utilities are these?
More? MS-DOS 6.x is missing the following:
ASSIGN.COM 4208.CPI
BACKUP.EXE 5202.CPI
COMP.EXE LCD.CPI
DOSSHELL EXE2BIN.EXE
EDLIN.EXE GRAFTABL.COM
JOIN.EXE MIRROR.COM
4201.CPI PRINTER.SYS
Better? For a start, the MS defragger won't handle drives bigger than
250MB.
JI>Do they offer better backup and anti-viral software?
Yes. The backup software supplied is a full CP version which
supports tape drives and has a scheduler.
The anti-virus uses 'fuzzy-logic' and will find mutating viruses which
otherwise elude detection.
JI>A better editor?
The E editor is much more powerful, although perhaps less user-friendly.
JI>A better memory organizer?
Upper memory management is superior - it will use extra video memory and
supports 286 machines. IBM DOS gives you more free conventional memory
than MS-DOS, but not as much as DR DOS.
JI>> SuperStor disk compression (far better than DoubleSpace).
JI>Far better? Why?
Well .... with SuperStor you can create compressed floppies which can be
used anywhere. SuperStor is faster. It crashes less (in our experience).
But all this is somewhat academic as far as I'm concerned - the best DOS
choice is Novell DOS 7.0. Period. And prior to the release of 7.0 this
week, DR DOS 6.0 was the best overall DOS available.
Michael.
---
ş SLMR 2.1c ş The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
Chris Glasser (SMOC 2nd Shift)
>To:Jim_...@transarc.com
>
>>> IBM then optimizes and recompiles it using the
>>> (non-Microsoft) Waterloo C compiler. They offer more and better
>>> utilities.
>
>JI>Other than SuperStor (which you mention below), which more and better
>>utilities are these?
>
>More? MS-DOS 6.x is missing the following:
>
>ASSIGN.COM 4208.CPI
>BACKUP.EXE 5202.CPI
>COMP.EXE LCD.CPI
>DOSSHELL EXE2BIN.EXE
>EDLIN.EXE GRAFTABL.COM
>JOIN.EXE MIRROR.COM
>4201.CPI PRINTER.SYS
BACKUP.EXE - MSDOS doesn't need this as it has MSBACKUP
EDLIN.EXE - Who wants this archaic piece of garbage?
DOSSHELL - How many people actually use this? Microsoft got rid of it
because no one wanted it taking up space on their hard disk. Norton
Commander is much better anyway, and so is Windows.
MIRROR - my version has this - perhaps because mine was an upgrade from
5.0?
>
>Better? For a start, the MS defragger won't handle drives bigger than
>250MB.
>
>JI>Do they offer better backup and anti-viral software?
>
>Yes. The backup software supplied is a full CP version which
>supports tape drives and has a scheduler.
>
>The anti-virus uses 'fuzzy-logic' and will find mutating viruses which
>otherwise elude detection.
>
>JI>A better editor?
>
>The E editor is much more powerful, although perhaps less user-friendly.
>
>JI>A better memory organizer?
>
>Upper memory management is superior - it will use extra video memory and
>supports 286 machines. IBM DOS gives you more free conventional memory
>than MS-DOS, but not as much as DR DOS.
>
>JI>> SuperStor disk compression (far better than DoubleSpace).
>JI>Far better? Why?
>
>Well .... with SuperStor you can create compressed floppies which can be
>used anywhere. SuperStor is faster. It crashes less (in our experience).
>
DoubleSpace can also compress floppy disks. Have you done tests that
determine conclusively that it is faster? I have not had it crash on DOS
6.2 in the 5 months I've been using it.
>But all this is somewhat academic as far as I'm concerned - the best DOS
>choice is Novell DOS 7.0. Period. And prior to the release of 7.0 this
>week, DR DOS 6.0 was the best overall DOS available.
>
This is probably quite true. :-)
>Michael.
>---
>ş SLMR 2.1c ş The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
>
>----
>Muddy Waters Computer Society Inc. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
>(204)943-6507,08,09 (204)942-0227 (204)956-4997 (all nodes USR 16.8K D/S)
Chris Glasser
AT&T Global Information Solutions
West Columbia, SC
glas...@oissvr.columbiasc.ncr.com
Michael Gillespie
>Subject: Re: PC-DOS vs MSDOS ?
CG(2S>EDLIN.EXE - Who wants this archaic piece of garbage?
I agree but its still a component of many DOS courses being taught.
CG(2S>DOSSHELL - How many people actually use this? Microsoft got rid of it
>because no one wanted it taking up space on their hard disk. Norton
>Commander is much better anyway, and so is Windows.
Many, many people only know how to manage their system through it <ugh!).
Commander is a third-party expense and windows meets all of the definitions
of a virus.
>>Well .... with SuperStor you can create compressed floppies which can be
>>used anywhere. SuperStor is faster. It crashes less (in our experience).
>DoubleSpace can also compress floppy disks.
You missed my point - SuperStor compressed floppies are universally
transportable - you don't need SSTOR on your system to access the
compressed data - not so w/Doublespace.
>Have you done tests that
>determine conclusively that it is faster?
We've done lots of benchmarking and head-to-head comparisons and, yes, we
are satisfied that SuperStor is faster (I guess that's WAS faster - Addstor
is out of business - but then IBM apparently bought the rights to their
version [which has DS support unlike other SSTOR versions] and controls the
destiny of their derivative product).
CG(2S>>But all this is somewhat academic as far as I'm concerned - the best DOS
>>choice is Novell DOS 7.0. Period. And prior to the release of 7.0 this
>>week, DR DOS 6.0 was the best overall DOS available.
>>
>This is probably quite true. :-)
I'm pleased that we agree.
>AT&T Global Information Solutions
Is this "the" AT&T who is rumoured to be buying Novell by any chance???<g>
R S Rodgers
Michael Gillespie <michael....@mwcsinc.muug.mb.ca> wrote:
>More? MS-DOS 6.x is missing the following:
Get the additional utilities. Last I say, DOS62S.EXE was on
ftp.cica.indiana.edu.
>Better? For a start, the MS defragger won't handle drives bigger than
>250MB.
I must have been hallucinating, then, when I defragged the 289
meg partition that is my D: drive the other day using DOS 6.2
defrag, eh?
>JI>A better memory organizer?
>
>Upper memory management is superior - it will use extra video memory and
>supports 286 machines. IBM DOS gives you more free conventional memory
>than MS-DOS, but not as much as DR DOS.
I could never get DRDOS 6.0 to match DOS6.2. With *no* tweaking
whatsoever with DOS6.2 (just running Ramboost), I ended up with 616k,
lots of drivers loaded. The same load was a struggle to get more
than 589k free under DRDOS 6.0. The Corel SCSI driver can't be loaded
after the DRDOS 6.0 EMM manager--which means it can't be loaded
high. With DOS 6.2, it can be. (DOS 6.2 "mem" reports 616k/636k.)
It's even worse on the machine next to me, which has all of this
*and* the Intel Satisfaxtion drivers. DRDOS? I was lucky to
squeeze out more than 560k free, but DOS 6.2 pulls 606k.
Since I didn't have to tweak at all with DOS 6.2, and had to tweak
a lot with DRDOS 6.0 (including reordering the loading of drivers--
I did it by hand and kept track of what, and where, gave the most
memory), I'd put 6.2 higher than DRDOS 6.0. I have no idea about
PCDOS 6.1.
>JI>> SuperStor disk compression (far better than DoubleSpace).
>JI>Far better? Why?
>
>Well .... with SuperStor you can create compressed floppies which can be
>used anywhere. SuperStor is faster. It crashes less (in our experience).
This may be true for the PCDOS version of Superstore. The DRDOS 6.0
version of Superstore 1.3 was a vile and repugnant beast, slow and
hoggish of memory, and only fairly reliable. Novell has switched
to Stacker in 7.0, and I'm sure IBM will follor. Good riddance:
Superstore 2.04 was the worst product of the kind that I have ever
tried.
>But all this is somewhat academic as far as I'm concerned - the best DOS
>choice is Novell DOS 7.0. Period. And prior to the release of 7.0 this
>week, DR DOS 6.0 was the best overall DOS available.
How can you say that Novell DOS 7.0 is the best is it hasn't been
released?
--
New .signature under development. Start your development now! Beat the crowd!
R S Rodgers
R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> I could never get DRDOS 6.0 to match DOS6.2. With *no* tweaking
> whatsoever with DOS6.2 (just running Ramboost),
Slip of the tongue. I meant "memmaker" not "ramboost." Yes,
I know the difference, and I most definitely meant the former, not
the latter.
Michael Gillespie
RSR>Get the additional utilities. Last I say, DOS62S.EXE was on
>ftp.cica.indiana.edu.
RSR>I must have been hallucinating, then, when I defragged the 289
>meg partition that is my D: drive the other day using DOS 6.2
>defrag, eh?
I'm guilty of taking PC-Computing's word on this one..
RSR>I could never get DRDOS 6.0 to match DOS6.2.
Not our experience. We usually get DO DOS to give us 642,000K free.
RSR>How can you say that Novell DOS 7.0 is the best is it hasn't been
>released?
Novell DOS 7.0 was released on 31 Jan 94.
Michael Gillespie
RSR>Get the additional utilities. Last I say, DOS62S.EXE was on
>ftp.cica.indiana.edu.
RSR>I must have been hallucinating, then, when I defragged the 289
>meg partition that is my D: drive the other day using DOS 6.2
>defrag, eh?
I'm guilty of taking PC-Computing's word on this one..
RSR>I could never get DRDOS 6.0 to match DOS6.2.
Not our experience. We usually get DO DOS to give us 642,000K free.
RSR>How can you say that Novell DOS 7.0 is the best is it hasn't been
>released?
Novell DOS 7.0 was released on 31 Jan 94.
S. Brett Coryell
>
^^^^^^^^
Now _that's_ impressive!
Brett Coryell
University of Virginia, CS Deptartment
Internet: Cor...@Virginia.edu
TouchStone
> How can you say that Novell DOS 7.0 is the best is it hasn't been
> released?
I've been running Novell DOS 7.0 and I'd have to say that you have to make some
adjustments to be comfortable under it, mainly because it's so new I guess.
One annoying thing about it is the SETUP program that comes with it. It makes
many changes to your configuration files without you knowing.
The feature set is REALLY nice, though...
Tam T. Pham
Head Developer - TouchStone Software Corporation.
Michael Gillespie
SBC>>RSR>I could never get DRDOS 6.0 to match DOS6.2.
>>
>>Not our experience. We usually get DR DOS to give us 642,000K free.
>^^^^^^^^
SBC>Now _that's_ impressive!
Brett, here's the MEM report which DR DOS 6 gives me on an 8MB 486 using
EMM386. This is a 'factory' boot with NO tweaking. Note that there is lots
of UMB still available.
Ú Memory Type ÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄ Total Bytes ( Kbytes ) ÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Available ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄż
ł ł ł ł
ł Conventional ł 655,360 ( 640K ) ł 642,160 ( 627K ) ł
ł Upper ł 163,840 ( 160K ) ł 120,400 ( 117K ) ł
ł High ł 65,520 ( 64K ) ł 8,240 ( 8K ) ł
ł Extended ł 7,340,032 ( 7,168K ) ł 0 ( 0K ) ł
ł Extended via XMS ł N/A ł 6,963,200 ( 6,800K ) ł
ŔÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄŮ
Michael.
---
ţ SLMR 2.1c ţ The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
Michael Gillespie
TO>One annoying thing about it is the SETUP program that comes with it. It makes
>many changes to your configuration files without you knowing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What exactly did you think the SETUP program was for??!!
SETUP in intended to create/modify the AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS so that
the user often never has to do it manually.
Glad you like the product.
Michael.
---
ş SLMR 2.1c ş The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
William Smithers
William Smithers
>To:t...@netcom.com
>
>Glad you like the product.
>
>Michael.
>---
>ş SLMR 2.1c ş The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
>----
>Muddy Waters Computer Society Inc. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
>(204)943-6507,08,09 (204)942-0227 (204)956-4997 (all nodes USR 16.8K D/S)
Michael --
In DRDOS 6.0, the Task-Switcher was not compatible with UltraVision,
which I use and would not want to be without. The UltraVision tech people
knew about this and told me some time ago that they were working with DR
to resolve the problem for future versions of DRDOS 6.0. However, I never
heard further about it.
Do you know whether Novell DOS 7.0's Task-Switcher (not referring to
multi-tasking) is compatible with UltraVision?
Thanks,
-- Bill Smithers
Michael Gillespie
>ÿ@FROM :bill...@netcom.com N
>ÿ@MSGID :<billwillC...@netcom.com> N
>Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
>From: bill...@netcom.com (William Smithers)
>Subject: Re: PC-DOS vs MSDOS ?
>Keywords: dos7.0,ultravision
>Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 23:05:30 GMT
WS>In article <3686.49...@mwcsinc.muug.mb.ca> michael....@mwcsinc.muug
>.ca (Michael Gillespie) writes:
>>To:t...@netcom.com
>>
>>Glad you like the product.
>>
>>Michael.
>>---
>>þ SLMR 2.1c þ The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
>>----
>>Muddy Waters Computer Society Inc. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
>>(204)943-6507,08,09 (204)942-0227 (204)956-4997 (all nodes USR 16.8K D/S)
WS>Michael --
WS>In DRDOS 6.0, the Task-Switcher was not compatible with UltraVision,
>which I use and would not want to be without. The UltraVision tech people
>knew about this and told me some time ago that they were working with DR
>to resolve the problem for future versions of DRDOS 6.0. However, I never
>heard further about it.
>Do you know whether Novell DOS 7.0's Task-Switcher (not referring to
>multi-tasking) is compatible with UltraVision?
>Thanks,
>-- Bill Smithers
---
þ SLMR 2.1c þ The Gray Research Group 204-943-9000 BBS/Fax 204-474-1969
Michael Gillespie
>Do you know whether Novell DOS 7.0's Task-Switcher (not referring to
>multi-tasking) is compatible with UltraVision?
I don't know. I'll check and get back to you.