DOS 3.3
bla...@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu
I am interested in finding out some info on DOS 3.3. I heard it rumored
that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier. If this is true,
can anyone either tell me or direct me to a source where I can get more
information. I want to know how to implement this new feature on an AT
so I can image process in another program that has virtual pages. This
is important. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Fai Lau
than 3.3. I heard that 3.3 was written with PS/2 in mind, so it
can take full advantage of PS/2's improvement (or difference,
which ever you prefer). This way if you use an older Dos, it will
either not work or it will not work as well as 3.3 system wise.
I haven't come across a copy of 3.3 and I just wonder if it is
worth upgrading, especially when it is eventually used in a
PC enviroment, which is alreaddy running 3.2.
Fai Lau
SUNY at Buffalo (The Arctic Wonderland)
UUCP: ..{mit-ems|watmath|rocksanne}!sunybcs!ugfailau
BI: ugfailau@sunybcs
Steve Simrin
Microsoft claims that MS-DOS 3.3 is "functionally equivalent" to
PC-DOS 3.3. Ergo, it is 99.99999999999999999% certain that the
640k barrier remains. I have a copy of MS-DOS 3.3 which I have not
looked at yet. If I find anything interesting, I will pass it on.
mark
I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3)
mark
homxb!mr
jo...@wa3wbu.uucp
>
> I am interested in finding out some info on DOS 3.3. I heard it rumored
> that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier. If this is true,
I know of no such feature of DOS 3.3. I have been using PC-DOS
3.3 since it was released in April on a couple of AT-clones and have had
no problems. One of the things it *was* to do is enable larger hard
disks than 32 MB. This is kinda true, it simply has built into it
a partitioning feature. Each partition must still be <= 32 MB. Maybe
this is what you saw. Other than that, I dont see too many large scale
enhancements from the 3.1 I was running.
John
--
John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john
1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!jo...@uunet.UU.NET
Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P
Scott Neugroschl
>that 3.3 was supposed to break the 640k RAM barrier
No, no, no... DOS 3.3 is DOS 3.2 but better. 3.3 allows what clone users
have had for a while -- support for file systems on a hard disk bigger than
32MB. Your partitions still have to be 32MB or less, but they can now all be
accessed from DOS. DOS 3.3 is still real mode, so you are limited to 1MB
address space, with 384K reserved for I/O, ROM, etc... leaving you with the
traditional DOS 640K barrier. To go protected, you have to get OS/2 or UNIX
(Uport, or XENIX).
--
Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl
UUCP: {litvax,humboldt,sdcrdcf,rdlvax,ttidca,}\_ csun!abcscnge
{psivax,csustan,nsc-sca,trwspf }/
-- "They also surf who stand on waves"
sim...@mis.ucsf.edu.uucp
>
>I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3)
>
I don't think so. Breaking the 640k barrier is one of the 2 big
features of OS/2 (multitasking being the other). If they fix DOS, it will
cut the sales of OS/2 significantly.
Mike Mitchell
prompt $p$g
path c:\bin;c:\bat;c:\fluff;c:\dandruf;c:\batch;c:\dos;c:\freen;c:\gunk
echo this is only a test and if you buy it you are a potato head
echo if you realy think you are cool than you will jot down the date
echo and time now.
date
time
Now, I have this other file C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT that looks like this...
echo Eat this one foo bar!
copy c:\autoexec.ddd c:\autoexec.bat
del c:\autoexec.ddd
echo You can do it too!
rem Now I want the machine to do a Ctrl/Alt/Del Warmboot at this point
reboot
Now I get this when I turn the machie on! ...
<<CLEAR SCREEN>> <<HELLO COUNT RAM>> <<NOW HANG ON WHILE I BOOT TO DOS>>
;c:\dos;c:\freen;c:\gunk
Command not found
C:\> echo this is only a test and if you buy it you are a potato head
this is only a test and if you buy it you are a potato head
C:\> echo if you realy think you are cool than you will jot down the date
if you realy think you are cool than you will jot down the date
and it continus from there. what i want to do is have an autoexec.bat file
do a couple of wierd commands wait a little bit and then reboot with no
trace.
this does not work the way i would expect it to with the autoexec.bat file.
what i would like is no trace at all.
any suggestions?
thank you.
mike mitchell
my...@lanl.gov
...!cmcl2!lanl!myxm
Isaac_K_R...@cup.portal.com
sim...@mis.ucsf.edu (Steve Simrin) writes:
->In article <11...@homxb.UUCP> m...@homxb.UUCP (mark) writes:
->>
->>I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3)
->>
->
->I don't think so. Breaking the 640k barrier is one of the 2 big
->features of OS/2 (multitasking being the other). If they fix DOS, it will
->cut the sales of OS/2 significantly.
I'd suggest a less cold-blooded motive: any such change to DOS for the
80286 would render a lot of 8088/6 applications programs nonfunctional.
That's the big problem with DOS: so much is done by individual application
programs that ought to be done in system software. Aside from the immoral
duplication of effort, this means that you can't do some improvements
in the system software without obsoleting a lot of application software.
Modularity! as Woody Allen used to say.
Incidentally, there are programs that can use AT Extended memory. I own two.
The first is Framework II, which comes with various driver modules for
"Extened Memory" on AT Extended Memory (which they call "memory past 640K on
the motherboard), Expanded Memory, or disk. I've tried out two of these
(I don't have Expanded Memory) and the drivers are painfully inefficient
and won't run if you start FW with less than 1/2 meg of normal memory
available, but they do come in handy when you run just over FW's normal
memory limits. I suspect these drivers would work very well if rewritten
by someone who knew paging algorithms; but this is probably not worth doing,
given FW's marginal usability.
The second is TI's implementation of the Scheme language. I'm not very
good at this kind of programming yet, but I get the impression TI Scheme's
use of Extended Memory is pretty robust. Not terribly suprising that
a LISP implementor would be good at memory managment!
What would save the day: somebody writing a generic Extended Memory driver
and selling it to various application programmers for inclusion in their
products. Such a driver could even be made to work on XTs, paging to disk
instead of memory. But I suppose that with all the focus on Expanded Memory
schemes, this is unlikely to happen. I'll probably get Expanded Memory
myself, especially if I go to a multitasking system (like DesqView) that
uses it.
Isaac Rabinovitch
Disclaimer: Just because I think you're wrong, doesn't
mean I don't think you're a fun person!
:-)
Raymond Juimong Chen
In article <13...@beta.UUCP> it was written:
>I want to have a file called C:\AUTOEXEC.DDD that looks like this:
>
>prompt $p$g
>path c:\bin;c:\bat;c:\fluff;c:\dandruf;c:\batch;c:\dos;c:\freen;c:\gunk
>echo this is only a test and if you buy it you are a potato head
>echo if you realy think you are cool than you will jot down the date
>echo and time now.
>date
>time
>
>Now, I have this other file C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT that looks like this...
>
>echo Eat this one foo bar!
>copy c:\autoexec.ddd c:\autoexec.bat
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is bad.
>del c:\autoexec.ddd
>echo You can do it too!
>rem Now I want the machine to do a Ctrl/Alt/Del Warmboot at this point
>reboot
when you copy the autoexec.ddd to autoexec.bat, autoexec.bat gets overwritten,
and you have essentially erased the program you are trying to execute!
This is the reason for the strange events which follow:
><<CLEAR SCREEN>> <<HELLO COUNT RAM>> <<NOW HANG ON WHILE I BOOT TO DOS>>
>;c:\dos;c:\freen;c:\gunk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The batch file got as far as "copy \autoexec.ddd \autoexec.bat".
When DOS looked for the next command in the file, it found somebody
else inside the autoexec.bat file. Being stupid, DOS assumed that nothing
happened at all and proceeds to continue execution from where it thinks
it left off. Thus, you get a partial command and all the rest of the
nonsense. (If you're really into that sort of thing, you could verify
that the garbage command ";c:\dos;..." actually appears in the file
autoexec.ddd exactly where the "del c:\autoexec.ddd" appears in the file
autoexec.bat.)
What you'd probably want is something like
AUTOEXEC.BAT:
doit
DOIT.BAT:
copy \autoexec.ddd \autoexec.bat
del \autoexec.ddd
do other stuff
reboot.
AUTOEXEC.DDD:
same as before
This time, when DOS copies autoexec.dd to autoexec.bat, nobody cares,
since the current batch file is DOIT.BAT.
It seems to me you're trying to pull a fast one on the normal person who
boots up the computer. I shall not pass moral judgement.
--
Raymond Chen UUCP: ...allegra!princeton!{pucc|phoenix}!rjchen
BITNET: 6101695@pucc, rjchen@pucc
ARPA: rjc...@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
"Say something, please! ('Yes' would be best.)" - The Doctor
--
Raymond Chen UUCP: ...allegra!princeton!{pucc|phoenix}!rjchen
BITNET: 6101695@pucc, rjchen@pucc
ARPA: rjc...@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
"Say something, please! ('Yes' would be best.)" - The Doctor
Mr. Video
PC-DOS 3.30 nor Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 will do it. I understand that it is
something that is supposed to be in PC-DOS 3.40.
--
harvard-\ ihnp4--\
Mr. Video !uwvax.................!nicmad!brown
rutgers-/ terminus-/ decvax--/
"... a can of deoderant that measures nine on the richter scale?"
55234-Figlik
In the documentation that accompanied the IBM DOS Technical Reference v3.3
was a note that stated that this was the last update that we would receive.
I take that to mean that IBM is not planning to come out with any further
DOS versions (although Microsoft may).
/=============================================================================\
| Jim Figlik |
| Physically at: |
| Electronically yours at: AT&T Bell Laboratories |
| Compuserve: 70047,3144 6R222 Indian Hill Main |
| ATT&T BL: ihnp4!ihlpl!figlik Naperville and Warrenvill Rds |
| (312) 979-3478 Naperville, IL 60566-7033 |
\=============================================================================/
The usual disclaimers about not representing corporate/company views apply.
Roger Garnett
>sim...@mis.ucsf.edu (Steve Simrin) writes:
>->In article <11...@homxb.UUCP> m...@homxb.UUCP (mark) writes:
>->>
>->>I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3)
>->>
>->
>->I don't think so. Breaking the 640k barrier is one of the 2 big
>->features of OS/2 (multitasking being the other). If they fix DOS, it will
>->cut the sales of OS/2 significantly.
well, its not a ram fix, but, Compaq DOS 3.31 breaks the 32M disk partition
limit. This feature should appear in MS DOS 3.4. (from PC Week, Dec 1)
So... mayby we'll all get lucky and get more Ram too.
okbye
Heather Mackinnon
> sim...@mis.ucsf.edu (Steve Simrin) writes:
> ->In article <11...@homxb.UUCP> m...@homxb.UUCP (mark) writes:
> ->>
> ->>I suspect that DOS 3.4 will fix the 640K [screwup]. (not 3.3)
> ->>
> ->
> ->I don't think so. Breaking the 640k barrier is one of the 2 big
> ->features of OS/2 (multitasking being the other). If they fix DOS, it will
> ->cut the sales of OS/2 significantly.
I talked to Microsoft in an effort to discover when the mythical DOS
3.4 will be released. They told me that there will be no further versions
of DOS ever. I mentioned the articles in PC Week and Microsoft said -
how shall I put this diplomatically? - that the columnist was misinformed.
That makes sense to me. Microsoft has put all of their eggs into OS/2's
basket and they aren't about to let DOS upgrades erode the OS/2 market.
Heather Mackinnon
Britton-Lee, Inc.
Urs Zurbuchen
>In article <13...@beta.UUCP> it was written:
>
>AUTOEXEC.BAT:
> doit
>
>DOIT.BAT:
> copy \autoexec.ddd \autoexec.bat
> del \autoexec.ddd
> do other stuff
> reboot.
>
>AUTOEXEC.DDD:
> same as before
You could the same thing without changing your AUTOEXEC.BAT. With the solution
presented above you will execute the same second version of AUTOEXEC.BAT each
time you reboot your machine (perhaps that's really what you want, but my
imagination doesn't go that far. If so, just disregard this article).
My solution: In the startup file you include the following:
if exist <filename_like_gaga.gag_or_whatever_you_want_to_call_it> goto second
<here included all the stuff you want executed when booted for the first time>
echo gaga > <filename_like_gaga.gag_or_whatever_you_want_to_call_it>
:second
<now follows the rest of the story (i.e. your autoexec.ddd)>
That's it. If you want to toggle between the two boot modes just add a line
like:
del <filename_like_gaga.gag_or_whatever_you_want_to_call_it>
I hope this will help anybody :-)
...urs
UUCP: ...seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu
Kevin Thomas
com4, but I now need to make my software work with them.
Does anybody know the interrupt number and (base) port address for
com3 and com4 on the pc/xt/at ?
Thanks in advance,
kmt
Erik Lindberg
>I want to have a file called C:\AUTOEXEC.DDD that looks like this:
>
>rem Now I want the machine to do a Ctrl/Alt/Del Warmboot at this point
>reboot
>
>Now I get this when I turn the machie on! ...
>
><<CLEAR SCREEN>> <<HELLO COUNT RAM>> <<NOW HANG ON WHILE I BOOT TO DOS>>
>;c:\dos;c:\freen;c:\gunk
>Command not found
You have already seen (if paying attention) an explanation of *why* you saw
the behaviour you did. What you didn't see was an viable workaround that
left NO TRACE of it's previous presence. The previous poster suggested
running a "doit.bat", but then you are left with doit.bat still there and
no way to really delete it.
I take particular perverted pleasure in setting things like this up for folks,
so here is the best way I have determined to do it. Rename their config.sys
to config.ddd. Rename their autoexec.bat to autoexec.ddd. Install a config.sys
which uses device=vdisk.sys (or omit this if they already use a vdisk.sys
in config.sys). Determine which drive vdisk.sys will be installed as (by
rebooting if necessary). Lets assume the ram disk will be drive v:
Your new autoexec.bat should contain:
if not "%1" == "" goto doit
copy autoexec.bat v:
v:autoexec foobar
:doit
rem this is the real stuff.... insert your joke here
:exit
del config.sys
rename config.ddd config.sys
del autoexec.bat
rename autoexec.ddd autoexec.bat
reboot
--
del (Erik Lindberg)
uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!del
zin...@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Regarding Dos 3.4, it is certainly strange to hear all these conflicting
reports. I would guess that the IBM Dos 3.3 Tech Ref. is the last because
no more fundamental changes are going into Dos with OS/2 out now. However,
the official (at least according to ASKINFO, IBM's tech. support) word is
that there will be another release of Dos to fix some of the bugs in 3.3.
Perhaps it will only be another update, probably 3.31 or something.
Steve Ward
Actually, version 3.4 looks very likely and will have Desqview-like
expanded memory and limited multitasking support. Rumor has it that the
Desqview product popularity and excellent functionality has forced
Microsoft to come out with these additions themselves. For a more
specific idea of what these additions will be, get a Desqview product
brochure.
Basically, via EMS4.0 memory, the added DOS features will support task
swapping and memory swapping so that multiple programs can be memory
resident within a much larger memory space and so that existing programs
that are memory hogs (CAD/CAE, for example) will have huge memory
available, all transparent to programs, meaning all existing
applications
should take advantage of the new features transparently, without program
changes -- the programs will not have to know anything about the
extended memory.
Time will tell, as all of this is rumor, but I have seen it all quoted
from Microsoft sources in print several times. Of course, Shirley
McClaine gets a lot of print, too. :-)
wa...@cs.ucla.edu
{backbone}!esquire!kthomas!kthomas writes:
>Does anybody know the interrupt number and (base) port address for
>com3 and com4 on the pc/xt/at ?
According to Appendix D of my ProComm 2.4.2 manual:
COM3 has a base port address of 3E8h and interrupts at IRQ4.
COM4 has a base port address of 2E8h and interrupts at IRQ3.
-- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 (213) 825-5683
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA
wa...@CS.UCLA.EDU ...!(ucbvax,rutgers)!ucla-cs!wales
"Sir, there is a multilegged creature crawling on your shoulder."
mcdo...@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
>
> Regarding Dos 3.4, it is certainly strange to hear all these conflicting
> reports. I would guess that the IBM Dos 3.3 Tech Ref. is the last because
> no more fundamental changes are going into Dos with OS/2 out now. However,
> the official (at least according to ASKINFO, IBM's tech. support) word is
> that there will be another release of Dos to fix some of the bugs in 3.3.
> Perhaps it will only be another update, probably 3.31 or something.
Just remember what Microsoft said about Windows: Any program that runs
in Windows will run on our new multitasking DOS. Then they announced
OS/2, whose windows aren't Microsoft Windows, if you get the meaning.
They will just announce DOS 3.4 and call it something else.
Debugger
>
>
>Just remember what Microsoft said about Windows: Any program that runs
>in Windows will run on our new multitasking DOS. Then they announced
>OS/2, whose windows aren't Microsoft Windows, if you get the meaning.
>They will just announce DOS 3.4 and call it something else.
I just read in a book given to me for Christmas (thanks, Jeff) that
DOS 4.0 is to be a multi-user, multi-tasking operating system for the PC.
It is not a DOS reference (it's a book on Assembly Language) but is
was published fairly recently.
============================================================================
Brian O'Neill University of Lowell
bon...@hawk.cs.ulowell.edu
"There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute."
Captain Jean-Luc Picard - ST:TNG "Justice"
John R. Levine
>I just read in a book given to me for Christmas (thanks, Jeff) that
>DOS 4.0 is to be a multi-user, multi-tasking operating system for the PC.
DOS 4.x has been out for a while but as far as I can tell is only sold in
Europe. It's a multitasking version of DOS, sort of like Digital Research's
Concurrent DOS. Microsoft makes no secret of it, but they don't seem to be
very enthusiastic about it either. My impression is that it doesn't swap,
it just partitions up whatever memory you've got. So much for breaking out
of 640K.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, +1 617 492 3869
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Lev...@YALE.something
The Iran-Contra affair: None of this would have happened if Ronald Reagan
were still alive.
Clayton Cramer
> >I just read in a book given to me for Christmas (thanks, Jeff) that
> >DOS 4.0 is to be a multi-user, multi-tasking operating system for the PC.
>
> DOS 4.x has been out for a while but as far as I can tell is only sold in
> Europe. It's a multitasking version of DOS, sort of like Digital Research's
> Concurrent DOS. Microsoft makes no secret of it, but they don't seem to be
> very enthusiastic about it either. My impression is that it doesn't swap,
> it just partitions up whatever memory you've got. So much for breaking out
> of 640K.
> --
My understanding is that DOS 4.x provides a background task strictly for
communications -- that it isn't a general purpose multitasking OS.
Clayton E. Cramer
Maurice Thaler
When I was in Europe this summer I asked several computer vendors about
DOS 4.0 and they all responded that it did not exist. This was in Germ{any
and Denmark. Perhaps it is available elsewhere but I doubt it.
Karel van Houten
Well, this response is from Europe: We have never heard about 4.x here either.
Sure.
--
Karel van Houten
Delft University of Technology INTERNET : ka...@dutesta.UUCP
Faculty of Electrical Engineering UUCP : ..!mcvax!dutrun!dutesta!karel
Room 9.29H, Mekelweg 4 SURFnet : DUTRUN::ETSTKVH
2628 CD DELFT, The Netherlands VOICE : +31 15 783502
Urs Zurbuchen
>DOS 4.x has been out for a while but as far as I can tell is only sold in
>Europe. It's a multitasking version of DOS, sort of like Digital Research's
MS-DOS 4.x is an OEM version of MS-DOS 3.x. No operating system was ever
sold as MS-DOS 4.x, not even here in Europe. At least to my knowledge
and I live in Europe. But it was bundled with some IBM-PC clones of
different manufacturers. As far as I know, MS-DOS 4.x is only an internal
name of MicroSoft. But before April 2, 1987 it was also rumored to be
the 80286 specific version of MS-DOS (including multitasking and everything
to be found real soon now in OS/2 which in turn is called BS/2 in
the German speaking part of Europe - thank you IBM :-) ).
...urs
UUCP: ...seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu
Ray Dunn
>In article <8...@ima.ISC.COM> jo...@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) writes:
>>DOS 4.x has been out for a while but as far as I can tell is only sold in
>>Europe. It's a multitasking version of DOS, sort of like Digital Research's
>
>MS-DOS 4.x is an OEM version of MS-DOS 3.x. No operating system was ever
>sold as MS-DOS 4.x, not even here in Europe.
Not speculation, fact:
MSDos 4.0 was/is the "multitasking" version of Dos "released" to support
MSNet 2.0.
The multitasking is only as required to handle the asynchronous tasks of
the network support, no multi-tasking is available at the applications
level.
I believe MS never released it at the retail level but they did supply a
version of it to OEM's (including ourselves).
We as an organisation do supply this product to our customers in Europe.
Ray Dunn. ..philabs!micomvax!ray
Disclaimer: The above are personal opinions and not necessarily that of my
employer, and, to the best of my knowledge, contains information
proprietary to neither my employer nor any other organisation.