Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!coplex!disk!proberts
From: proberts@disk.uucp (Phil Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: dos 3.3 or 4.01
Message-ID: <1991May21.011146.14519@disk.uucp>
Date: 21 May 91 01:11:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: disk.1991May21.011146.14519
References: <5345@network.ucsd.edu> <1991May15.191539.30708@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Lines: 26

mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir) writes:

>In article <5345@network.ucsd.edu> nbeck@weber.ucsd.edu (Nathaniel Beck) writes:
>>I am getting a new 486 and Gateway will install either Dos 3.3 or
>>4.01 at my option. With an 80M HD it would be nice to avoid having
>>C, D and E drives using Dos 4.01. But I remember that a while ago
>>people shied away from 4.01 because it was reputed to be buggy. Is
>>this still the case, and should I stick with tried and true 3.3?

>No.  According to all reports (I haven't used it but plan to), Digital
>Research's DR DOS 5.0 is superior to DOS 3.3 and DOS 4.* but totally
>compatible (except for DOS utilities, of course).  Otherwise, I would stick
>with 3.3.

> * * * * * * *  ======================= Meir Green                 
>* * * * * * * * ======================= mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu 
> * * * * * * *  ======================= N2JPG                      

Why, "according to all reports", is DR DOS 5.0 superior?

Phil
-- 
  Phil Roberts           |      Internet:  proberts@disk.uucp 
  Louisville, Kentucky   |          UUCP:  uunet!coplex!disk!proberts 
                         |______________________________________________
            "I `AM' a pro!  I can't help it if my program won't work."