Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!sigma
From: sigma@obee.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: The 33 MByte limit (was: Trouble installing DOS 4.01)
Message-ID: <1.9grbj@rpi.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: obee.ipl.rpi.edu
References: <1991May4.181411.13212@novell.com>
Date: 9 May 91 05:05:37 GMT
Lines: 43

tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>Since the original poster indicated he has a 386, there is a 100 to 1
>possibility that he has some extended memory and has a disk cache
>installed. At this point your highly theoretical calculations about
>micro-seconds saved in head movement with 33 Mb partitions are totally
>irrelevant. Having a 100 or 200 Mb drive with 9 partitions on it is
>about as efficient as having all your teeth pulled so you will never
>get a toothache. 33 Mb partition sucks, plain and simple. My advice
>is, if you can wait for DOS 5.0, do so, if not, go with 4.01 and then
>upgrade with 5.0 (I hear you will be able to "upgrade" without the
>need to reformat).

I don't think you fully understand the benefits of staying with DOS 3.3
until a decent MS-DOS comes out.  The 33Mb partitions are IMHO quite handy,
both for improved efficiency and organization.  I have a 3Mb EMS disk
cache, and believe me, there's a world of difference in speed between
running PicLab on C: with temporary files on I: and running it on C: with
temporary files on C:.  It follows logically that if I have a large
partition where my data and programs might be widely separated (even though
not fragmented), I'll suffer in performance.

I have dozens and dozens of packages installed on my machine (a big reason
for having a big drive).  I obviously can't put everything I might use into
my path.  But I can run programs from one partition while staying in the
current directory of another partition like so:

E:\TMP> c:pl286

And that's a fair bit easier than 'c:\graphics\piclab\pl286' I'd say.

Staying with DOS 3.3 also renders me virtually immune to a host of glitches
introduced with DOS 4.x, such as the mouse problem and the extended memory
"support."  I also have nearly 600K free with little effort.  I know of at
least one program which will NOT run on a stripped machine under DOS 4.x.

I also don't have to pay to upgrade, not until DOS 5.0, and even when that
comes out, it'll have to prove itself after the 4.x fiasco.

Newer (not necessarily) == better.
-- 
Kevin Martin
sigma@ipl.rpi.edu
"Can I kiss one of the bridesmaids instead?"