Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dab6
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: DR DOS 5.0 (was Re: dos 3.3 or 4.01)
Message-ID: <1991May21.181113.27112@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 21 May 91 18:11:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1991May21.181113.27112
References: <1991May21.011146.14519@disk.uucp> <5345@network.ucsd.edu> <1991May15.191539.30708@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns6.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, proberts@disk.uucp (Phil Roberts) says:
>
>Why, "according to all reports", is DR DOS 5.0 superior?


I have a 386sx20 with 3 megs of ram

in my config.sys I have:

emm386.sys
ansi.sys
an ems disk cache prog. that comes with dr dos 5.0
f-driver from f-prot anti virus
and clarkson packet drivers

in my autoexec.bat I have:

CED Command line EDitor
gmouse
and more packet driver stuff.


According to norton 5.0, I have 584k of free conventional memory left.

That's pretty superior.
-- 
Douglas Bell         "... but that's not important, that's just numbers."   
dab6@po.cwru.edu               Dr. Wu,  Math Professor