Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsh!rkl
From: rkl@cbnewsh.att.com (kevin.laux)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: MS-DOS 5.0 and the set switchar function 3701H
Keywords: possibly not supported
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.134344.1572@cbnewsh.att.com>
Date: 28 Mar 91 13:43:44 GMT
References: <12571@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <2633@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27

In article <2633@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk>, scott@cs.hw.ac.uk (Scott Telford) writes:
> In article <12571@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mdlawler@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael D.
> Lawler) writes:
> >I've heard rumor that MS-DOS 5.0 might not support the INT 21H function
> >3701H set switchar.  Maybe if enough people voice their opinions to
> >Microsoft this will be left in.  I can see no reason to remove this
> >function and several to leave it in.  If this function is removed
> >MS-DOS will lose a degree of portability.  Any program written to
> >use this function will not work.  Also this function makes it easier
> >for people to migrate between operating systems.  I personally don't
> >believe that there is any justification for the removal of this choice!
> 
> I agree entirely. IMHO the only good thing about DOS is that it can
> almost look like a brain-dead sort of Unix. However, Microsoft seemed
> to lose interest in Unixifying DOS after v2.0 was released. I suppose
> it's too late now for Microsoft to start putting Unix-compatible things
> that Unix exists :^) but there's no excuse for them taking the few

	Wait a minute here.  Who said anything about *removing* function 3701?
My understanding is that DOS 5.0 (like 4.0) just IGNORES checking what the
switchar actually is (like xcopy has been doing for even longer).

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959