Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!milton!sumax!polari!lsh
From: lsh@polari.UUCP (Lee Hauser)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Which DOS should I use?
Message-ID: <3632@polari.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 91 03:45:44 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.205844.19975@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <5707@tellab5.tellabs.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944
Lines: 25

In article <5707@tellab5.tellabs.com> dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) writes:
>drive.  I can get a copy of DOS 4.0 (IBM) for a good price (free)
>but see a DOS 4.01 out there.  Will both of these let me "see"
>the full size on the C prompt?  What was the differance between
>4.0 and 4.01?  I see people talking about 4DOS but I can't FTP
>from my sight :-(  Any help would be great.
>
IBM DOS 4.0 is presumably similar to 4.01.  4.0 got a bad rep for being very
buggy, but that was IBM only -- all others have the worst probs fixed. IMHO,
the ONLY reason to have 4.x is drive partitioning.  It takes too much memory
and really adds very little to DOS 3.3.  If you can get Compaq DOS 3.31, it 
has all the joys of DOS 3.3 plus large partitions.  4dos won't help, it is
just a command interpreter that runs on whatever DOS you booted with (though
it is far superior to anything Microsoft or IBM ever put out).  Wait and see
what DOS 5.0 does...


>Dawdy@tellabs.com


-- 
------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- =======
                  uw-beaver!sumax!seattle!lsh -- lsh@seattle
                                  Lee Hauser
          If I pay for access, I don't have to disclaim ANYTHING!