Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!ebrill
From: ebrill@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Edward Brill)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: DR DOS
Message-ID: <1990Jul25.144143.28824@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 25 Jul 90 14:41:43 GMT
Reply-To: ebrill@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Edward Brill)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Lines: 31

In article <720@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> ries@venice.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries) writes:
>I'm somewhat surprised that no one has used/commented on the Digital 
>Research DOS V5.0 OS for the IBM-PC.  The PC-WEEK Windows Special insert
>had a full-page ad:
>
>     Introducing  DR DOS 5.0: Windows 3.0 compatible and much, much more.
>                              Shipping May 1990.
>
>Anybody use it? Comments?

We don't use DR DOS as much as we use Digital Research's Concurrent DOS,
but IMO DR DOS is a decent package.  The July (final) issue of PC Resource
comments on DR DOS as being MS DOS 3.3 compatible, supports disk partitions
up to 512 MB, and has "goodies galore".  We have found with Concurrent
that programs that directly access hardware instead of going through BIOS
(esp. Microsoft products) have problems running under CDOS.  That may not
be true with DR DOS, but I'd bet it is.

Digital Research established DR DOS in the market because it was available
early on as a ROM chip...something Microsoft has only recently done with
MS DOS.

PC Resource promises "Look for a complete review in next month's issue."...
but they ceased publication with this issue.  Oh well.

---
-- 
Ed Brill                           |  New .signature under construction...
Floral Network, a Division of FTD  |  Hey, I just got the account!
ebrill@ddsw1.mcs.com               |  ------------------------------------
ebrill@ucs.indiana.edu             |  Voice : (708) 719-7800