Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:3487 alt.msdos.programmer:1880 comp.os.msdos.misc:50 comp.os.msdos.programmer:116 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:88 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:2404 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlv2!gvlv1!kleonard From: kleonard@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Ken Leonard) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,alt.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer Subject: system configuration Keywords: win3 disk manager dos4 Message-ID: <813@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM> Date: 16 Jul 90 19:28:02 GMT Sender: news@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM Reply-To: kleonard@gvlv1.UUCP (Ken Leonard) Distribution: usa Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, NISD, Great Valley Laboratory Lines: 38 I am about to acquire a new system, a 386SX clone. It will be running DOS4.01 and WINDOWS3.0. It will be one of two brands (tbd in the next 2 or 3 days): AUSTIN or ZEOS. -- The key question(s) center on the type (and size) of hard disk: either MFM or IDE, 70 to 80 MB. It _will_not_ be RLL. I can't afford SCSI or ESDI. -- So... With DOS4, I _think_ I don't need a disk manager (e.g. SpeedStor or DiskManager) to do _any_or_whatever_ partitioning I may feel like doing. But DOS brings _no_ disk diagnostics, no way to assure confidence in the media over a long period of time (I think). ... But I would like to have a higher confidence level, by having decent and straightforward and not-heavily-masked disk-surface diagnostics. So is a disk manager the way to go? Is a disk manager even relevant with an IDE drive? ... Is there a disk manager that is safe with WIN3? Or a mode of running WIN3 (e.g. a startup or .ini switch) that makes it safe without killing performance? I have an application I occasionally run here at work (the new system will be at home) that _requires_ virthdirq=NO, which absolutely _trashes_ disk performance under WIN386/2.11. ... How many partitions will DOS4 FDISK let me have? And does it refrain from making stupid assumptions about what the partitions are or must be? I may end up running a UN*X-like partition, which will need to be made bootable as an alternative to DOS4. Can I depend on DOS4 FDISK to not screw-up the partition table? ... Am I even asking the right questions? Hey, Col. Custer, What am I Doing here? ----------------- thanx and regardz, Ken