Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news
From: heathh@roo (Heath Ian Hunnicutt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: MS-DOS 5.0
Message-ID: <1991May19.143755.8825@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 19 May 91 14:37:55 GMT
References: <1991May19.103341.10003@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: news@nntp-server.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 28

In article <1991May19.103341.10003@nntp-server.caltech.edu>  
nyet@nntp-server.caltech.edu (n liu) writes:
> I too have been "unofficially" testing dos 5.0 and have a question about
> its share.exe
> 
> If you don't load it, it doesn't warn about "large media". Unlike dos 4.01,
> if its in your root dir (or shell directory), it does not appear to get
> loaded automatically. Does this mean dos 5.0 takes care of most sharing
> violations (excluding network shares?), and i don't need it? Still playing
> it safe for now though...
The only way to properly load SHARE.EXE is to place it in your C:\ directory,  
where it is loaded on boot-up along with IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.SYS.  I don't  
know whether 5.0 has fixed the FCB problem with big drives or not, but it is  
worth mentioning here that DOS 4.01 would only stop complaining about SHARE if  
you kept it in the root directory or in a COMSPEC directory.  Even if you  
installed it as a device driver in CONFIG.SYS, DOS 4.01 still complained.  On  
some group, I posted a long-winded explanation of the purpose of SHARE, I won't  
repeat it here.  Until further notice, I am keeping SHARE.EXE in my C:\.

--
Heath Hunnicutt              | X-Wing Pilot: "Ahhh! I'm gonna die!"
heathh@pooh.cco.caltech.edu  | Rebel Command: "Stay on target..."
131.215.48.30                | ... my life at Caltech
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the unlikely event that I might seem to be representing Caltech's opinion on  
any matter, I am not.  In fact, if it is brought to my attention that I share  
any particular opinion with Caltech's administration and other assorted Yahoos,  
I will change that opinion of mine.