Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!attctc!chasm
From: chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 3.3 versus 4.0
Message-ID: <10471@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 4 Dec 89 06:13:32 GMT
References: <35976@cc.utah.edu>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 23

In article <35976@cc.utah.edu>, ORCUTT@cc.utah.edu writes:
> The place where I work upgraded from 3.3 to 4.01 so they
> could address the 40 Mbyte hard disk as a single
> drive on their Ventura Publisher machine.  They then
> had to buy a TSR manager to make the TSR's on the
> machine move to extended memory so they could run Ventura
> (I think it was 386-to-the-Max). The whole thing seemed
> like a waste of money to me.

They probably went to Ventura 2.0 about the same time -- that's why
we had to do the same thing (and in fact, we are still running DOS 3.2
on that machine).  Ventura doesn't leave much room for anything, not
even video drivers!

I would say that you could not even run 2.0 on a machine with the DOS 4
shell installed (haven't tried that though, so it MIGHT work ;^).  But if
you don't install the shell 4.01 is not much bigger than 3.2 (20K?, I can't
remember off the top of my head) -- and most of the disk managers that permit
multiple DOS partitions and/or larger DOS partitions take that much room.

Charles Marslett
STB Systems, Inc.  <-- Apply all standard disclaimers
chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us