Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!steveha
From: steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: MS/PC DOS 3.3 vs 4.? (which is better?)
Message-ID: <58280@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 90 22:55:48 GMT
References: <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com>
Reply-To: steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings)
Distribution: na
Organization: Microsoft International Products Group
Lines: 44

In article <1990Oct15.025303.6582@odetics.com> frank@odetics.UUCP (Frank Merrow) writes:

>Does it really support partitions bigger than 32K?

Yes, it really does.  DOS 4.x uses a 16-bit FAT, so it can support very
large disks indeed.


>Is the shell really all that bad.

I can't stand it.


>Do you have to use this "graphical interface" or is there
>something more like COMMAND.COM included also?

The shell is optional.  You can just use COMMAND.COM and delete the shell.
I did.


>How does Windows 3.0 and DOS 4.x get along.  How about utilities like Mace
>and Fastback - do they have problems with the large partitions?

When 16-bit FATs first came out, there were many problems with programs like
Mace, Norton, and Fastback.  But current versions of such programs support
16-bit FATs.

Windows 3.0 and DOS 4.x work fine together.


>I assume that even though the Hard Disc is a large partition that the
>standard floppies still work too (even Microsoft would not dare screw up
>that bad).

The format of floppy disks is unchanged.


DOS 4.x takes up more memory than 3.x, but unless you use many TSRs or have
some other need for as much conventional memory as possible, this will
not matter much.  On a large hard disk, I would much rather use 4.x than
3.x since I cannot stand having a bunch of 32MB partitions.
-- 
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings    ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha  steveha@microsoft.uucp    ` \\==|