help : which is better MSDOS 5.0 or DRDOS 6.0
Ghazali Shafie
The subject says it all . I just want to know which is better so I'll
get the one which is better
Thanks in advance
Mike Shirley
>
> The subject says it all . I just want to know which is better so I'll
> get the one which is better
I'm rather pleased with DR-DOS V6.0 and Desqview 386 on my 386-33
4meg box for multitasking. I'd be hard pressed to say which is
better but DR includes a bunch of utilities that you will pay
extra for from MS.
--
Mike, WB6WUI // INET: mi...@slic.cts.com // GEnie: SLIC
eric peters
>882...@dragon.acadiau.ca (Ghazali Shafie) writes:
>
>>
>> The subject says it all . I just want to know which is better so I'll
>> get the one which is better
>
>I'm rather pleased with DR-DOS V6.0 and Desqview 386 on my 386-33
>4meg box for multitasking. I'd be hard pressed to say which is
>better but DR includes a bunch of utilities that you will pay
>extra for from MS.
>
impression that this combo was everything that DR-DOS was and more.
--
Eric Peters
pet...@CS.Colostate.EDU
Tooraj Enayati
I don't know much about 4Dos, but does it have Superstore-like util
to make my 85meg HD 170Meg? I thought Superstore was the only big diff
b/w MS-DOS 5.0 and DR-DOS 6.
--
==============================================================================
Tooraj Enayati Melbourne Australia too...@daneel.rdt.monash.edu.au
Monash University Robotic and Digital Technology (Graduate/Alumni)
==============================================================================
Frank Slootweg CRC
I prefer DR DOS 6.0. It has a "disk-doubler" (SuperStor), a better
memory manager, a better cache and a lot of other goodies which MS-DOS
5.0 does not have or which are more complete than the MS-DOS versions.
Just ask the sales person to show you the main manual. Somewhat in the
beginning there is a section on what's new since DR DOS 5.0 which
basically is a competitive analysis of MS-DOS 5.0.
Mike Shirley
> In article <FHwJoB...@slic.cts.com> mi...@slic.cts.com (Mike Shirley) writ
> >I'm rather pleased with DR-DOS V6.0 and Desqview 386 on my 386-33
> >4meg box for multitasking. I'd be hard pressed to say which is
> >better but DR includes a bunch of utilities that you will pay
> >extra for from MS.
> >
> Like what? I have MS-DOS 5 and 4Dos on my machine. I was under the
> impression that this combo was everything that DR-DOS was and more.
I moved up to DR-DOS 6.0 from MS-DOS 3.2 and mis-spoke. Not
having used MS-DOS 5.0 (nor 4DOS) I'm not in a position to
comment on which DOS is "better". But then basing my short
comment on MS 3.2 while the thread dealt with MS 5.0 wasn't very
slic either.
But DR-DOS and Desqview for multi-tasking is very stable. And my
copy of OS/2 2.0 is still on the shelf. I have Norton U and will
look into NDOS.
Jim Johnson
alternative system configurations at boot time, also the CHAIN statement
permits the CONFIG.SYS file to divert to any other file to continue
configuration. And batch files are much closer to being a true language
with the support of subroutines and other goodies.
On the other hand, for some reason, I find it much easier to setup a MSDOS
5.0 emergency boot floppy. Also, for some reason DRDOS 6.0 insists that my
B: drive is a 1.2meg 5.25 rather than the 720K 3.5 that it is. I have to
use DRIVPARM to correct its impression of my system (I need to talk with
DRI one of these days...)
-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
Jim Johnson-
*** Remember, they're only tools - Not a way of life! ***
Jim Johnson
I can't give you an all inclusive - "choose this one" type of response.
Both are significantly better than their predecessors. I would like to
make a point though - both versions of DOS are aimmed at 386/486 machines.
They both give you much more conventional memory if you can stuff code into
all the nooks and crannies available to remappable memory (386/486). On a
286 machine or an 8086 with expanded memory, I think DRDOS 6.0 has a bit
more flexibility for memory useage than MSDOS 5.
I've heard that MSDOS 5.0 is a bit faster, but I haven't installed both
DOSes on the same machine running the same applications, so I really can't
say whether or not this is true.
DRDOS 6.0 comes with a much better set of utilities (I removed many of the
little PD .COM files from my hard drive that I've have used for years), but
keep in mind that BASIC in whatever form is useful for a lot of quick and
dirty tasks and MSDOS 5.0 comes with QBasic and DRDOS has no included
programming language. From what little I have used DRDOS's graphical
shell, it appears to be a stripped down version of GEM - which was quite
popular.
Eric Scoles
(Jim Johnson) writes:
>I have installed MSDOS 5.0 on several machines and DRDOS 6.0 on one (mine).
>I can't give you an all inclusive - "choose this one" type of response.
>Both are significantly better than their predecessors. I would like to
>make a point though - both versions of DOS are aimmed at 386/486 machines.
>They both give you much more conventional memory if you can stuff code into
>all the nooks and crannies available to remappable memory (386/486). On a
>286 machine or an 8086 with expanded memory, I think DRDOS 6.0 has a bit
>more flexibility for memory useage than MSDOS 5.
I'll just comment that my personal opinion is the opposite -- for most 286s,
DRDOS is not as "good" -- you can only use UMBs if you have LEAP or NEAT
chipsets, and you can't load that super disk cache high without EMS.
>I've heard that MSDOS 5.0 is a bit faster, but I haven't installed both
>DOSes on the same machine running the same applications, so I really can't
>say whether or not this is true.
For some reason, the DRDOS update seems to boot a _lot_ faster than the
fiels it replaces.
>DRDOS 6.0 comes with a much better set of utilities (I removed many of the
>little PD .COM files from my hard drive that I've have used for years), but
>keep in mind that BASIC in whatever form is useful for a lot of quick and
>dirty tasks and MSDOS 5.0 comes with QBasic and DRDOS has no included
>programming language. From what little I have used DRDOS's graphical
>shell, it appears to be a stripped down version of GEM - which was quite
>popular.
Re. the shell -- Mr. Johnson probably didn't try to do anything with it (
8-) ), 'cause you more or less can't. He's probably got a real shell. So
if a bundled shell matters, IMHO, that's a strike versus DRDOS. But the
task switcher is quite nice -- _very_ stable! It has a nice feature set,
too. And it uses XMS (the DOS task swapper doesn't). I think the task
switcher is the best bonus, and hardly anybody mentions it. I do feel the
lack of a BASIC from time to time, though.
>-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
>Jim Johnson-
>*** Remember, they're only tools - Not a way of life! ***
--
Eric Scoles : <<insert witty, pithy comment
scl...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu : here >>
University of Rochester --------:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R James
>Re. the shell -- Mr. Johnson probably didn't try to do anything with it (
>8-) ), 'cause you more or less can't. He's probably got a real shell. So
>if a bundled shell matters, IMHO, that's a strike versus DRDOS. But the
>task switcher is quite nice -- _very_ stable! It has a nice feature set,
>too. And it uses XMS (the DOS task swapper doesn't). I think the task
>switcher is the best bonus, and hardly anybody mentions it.
I agree. I like the option of using the task switcher without the shell.
Point for DRDOS. But today I've hit a little snag. Trying to
run DRDOS on this #@$%! 286 and the task switcher cuts my COM1 connection
when I go to another application. DOS 5 never did this.
Anyone else had this problem?
Is there a fix for this?
>>Jim Johnson-
>Eric Scoles : <<insert witty, pithy comment
--
Michael James mrjg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
barf [ba:rf] 2. "He suggested using FORTRAN, and everybody barfed."
- From The Shogakukan DICTIONARY OF NEW ENGLISH (Second edition)
Frank Pikelner
DR DOS 6 and to my surprise when copying high density floppies there is no
disk shuffeling like with MS DOS 5. The software copies the entire disk to RAM,
then to the destination. With MSDOS 5 you need to insert the source and
destination 2 or 3 times.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- --- Frank Pikelner /~\
\ \ \ Technical Assistant, Department of Computer Science <v.v>
\- \-- York University (Toronto, Canada) ,\^/;
\ \ Internet: fr...@cs.yorku.ca _{!}_
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Liberato
>In <Jim_John...@abcd.Houghton.MI.US> Jim_J...@abcd.Houghton.MI.US
>(Jim Johnson) writes:
>>[...]
>>On a 286 machine or an 8086 with expanded memory, I think DRDOS 6.0 has
>>a bit more flexibility for memory useage than MSDOS 5.
>
>I'll just comment that my personal opinion is the opposite -- for most 286s,
>DRDOS is not as "good" -- you can only use UMBs if you have LEAP or NEAT
>chipsets, and you can't load that super disk cache high without EMS.
Since DRDOS supports the NEAT, LEAP, SCAT, and AMD chipsets in addition to
large frame EMS for Upper Memory Block support and MSDOS will NOT support UMBs
on any 286 without the addition of a third-party memory manager, how can DRDOS
not be as good as MSDOS in that particular area (286 UMB support)?
>>I've heard that MSDOS 5.0 is a bit faster, but I haven't installed both
>>DOSes on the same machine running the same applications, so I really can't
>>say whether or not this is true.
>
>For some reason, the DRDOS update seems to boot a _lot_ faster than the
>[files] it replaces.
One interesting test is to use Manifest's timer interupt latency test to
compare QEMM, MSDOS EMM386.EXE, and DRDOS EMM386.SYS on the same 386 system.
The relative performance of MSDOS was some 20 times slower than QEMM. (DRDOS
was 0.25 times slower.) This is why QEMM is still a viable product.
The best thing about having two competing products is that the customer comes
into the equation now. Even if someone were to dispute that DRDOS is an
emormously better value, they would have to admit that MSDOS is better now
BECAUSE of DRDOS. Everyone remembers how Gordon Letwin of Microsoft came
before the net two years ago to ask for input on desired features for a
proposed new version of MSDOS only after DRDOS 5.0 was first publicly shown.
(Note: I work for the company that makes DRDOS.)
--
Jimmy Liberato libe...@dri.com
...uunet!drivax!liberato
