Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!drivax!frotz From: frotz@dri.com (Frotz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: DR DOS 5.0 (was Re: dos 3.3 or 4.01) Message-ID: Date: 29 May 91 22:39:37 GMT References: <1991May21.181113.27112@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <12990006@hplsla.HP.COM> Sender: frotz@dri.com Reply-To: frotz@dri.com Organization: Digital Research, Monterey CA/USA or none (see also My_Desk) Lines: 36 kens@hplsla.HP.COM (Ken Snyder) writes: ] dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes: ]| In a previous article, proberts@disk.uucp (Phil Roberts) says: ]| >Why, "according to all reports", is DR DOS 5.0 superior? ]| According to norton 5.0, I have 584k of free conventional memory left. ] According to Norton 5.0 I have 587k of conventional memory left. ]| ]| That's pretty superior. ] Superior to what???? ] I am curious about DRDOS 5.0 (I've seen the adds) but the question ]remains, what will it do for me that I don't already have? Obviously, ]memory management isn't it (at least from this example). Command help for one. C:\> DIR/H gives you something rational about how to use DIR... The same for most (if not all) other commands in DR DOS. Granted. You probably don't need this. Nifty-whiz-bang-setup utility for quick reconfiguration... Again, it doesn't sound like you *need* this. FILELINK. Our response to an OS supplied lap-link... A rational TREE command. I would expect that they big gains are in memory management for _people_who_don't_already_have_it_... I would also say that the comparison is against vanilla DOS 3.3 or 4.01... We are not comparing vanilla operating systems with add-ons, we are comparing operating systems to like operating systems. -- Frotz