Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!purdue!sage.cc.purdue.edu!rusbara2
From: rusbara2@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: MS/PC DOS 3.3 vs 4.? (which is better?)
Message-ID: <4611@sage.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 90 22:57:55 GMT
References: <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com>
Reply-To: rusbara2@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan)
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 28

In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes:
>I have been running under the assumption that DOS 4.x is NOT the way to
>go.  I guess someplace I heard that it is MUCH bigger than 3.3 and that
>the "graphical interface" (is this COMMAND.COM?) is not that good.  In
>scanning some other News I happened to notice that 4.x supports disc
>partitions bigger than 32K.

Normally I'd assume this was a typo, but since it appeared several other
times in the text I deleted and the poster also seemed worried about
floppies possibly being too big I think there's a little misunderstanding
here.

MS-DOS 3.3 supports partitions up to 32 MEGATBYTES.  Are bigger partitions
really a "big plus?"  For the average user, I'd actually say no.  It
seems people actually keep things better organized when they have to 
divide it between different logical drives.  If they end up having, say
drives C: thru F: they'll group certain things on certain drives.  If
it's all one drive it often just becomes a big mess.

Also, you *can* use drivers larger than 32 M with no problem.  You just
have to partition it into smaller logical drives and DOS treats it as
several drives.

Sorry if this seems obvious and trivial...


Bob Rusbasan
bob@en.ecn.purdue.edu