Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!biivax.dp.beckman.com!dahosek
From: dahosek@biivax.dp.beckman.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: MS-DOS 5.0
Message-ID: <1991May17.095357.313@biivax.dp.beckman.com>
Date: 17 May 91 16:53:57 GMT
References: <1991May16.174140.26161@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991May17.161025.10599@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <1991May17.161025.10599@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, heathh@kanga (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes:
> In article <1991May16.174140.26161@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu  
> (Jess M Holle) writes:

>>   1)  What problems does it solve (this guy said that the 640K limit would
>>       go away completely so that any amount of memory could be used and that
>>       it would have built in "sturdy" multitasking among other things)?

> 		NOT!  The guy is on drugs.  The version I saw (5.000.149 Beta) 
>gave me (286 
> 2MB 12MHz) about 630k RAM free.  It laoded the COMMAND.COM kernel high, 
>which  
> sucked becasue I use 4DOS, and 4DOS could not access the XMS memory that was  
> reserved for COMMAND.COM.  A bit of fiddling in config.sys was required to 
>load  
> 4DOS into high RAM.  

What exactly is happening here? is it just that you didn't have
enough XMS left over for 4DOS to load there or is there some
serious conflict with memory management? (I'd hate to think that
DOS 5 would, say take over all my XMS). Anyone out there have
specific experiences with the DOS5/4DOS/QEMM combo?

-dh

-- 
Don Hosek // Quixote Digital Typography   714-625-0147
     dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu
On contract to Beckman Instruments        714-961-4562
     dahosek@beckman.com