Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!yev_g
From: yev_g@athena.mit.edu (Yevgeny Gurevich)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: New DOS(s)    Yes, but WHY upgrade?
Keywords: MS-DOS, DR-DOS, 5.0
Message-ID: <1991Jun12.173929.18583@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 91 17:39:29 GMT
References: <1991Jun12.170655.7003@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 72

In article <1991Jun12.170655.7003@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts) writes:
>>I just read a very positive review of the new MS-DOS (5.0), which
>>Microsoft has just released. Claims it:
>>- takes up much less RAM than previous versions;
>
>How much is 'much less'?  To be specific, how much more base memory
>will I get over my DOS 4.01?
>

I previously ran DOS 4.01 with QEMM 5.12.  I had about 586K free after drivers,
buffers, etc.  With the DOS 5.0 with QEMM 5.12, I have 621K free.  With JUST DOS 5.0 and
Himem.SYS, I have 609K but I have not had much time to experiment with the non-QEMM
option.

>>- includes the very good undelete and unformat utilities from PC Tools
>
>But I already have a utility to do that.  Big deal.

Just a matter of convenience.  As you state, no great addition for those who already
have such utilities.

>>Deluxe;
>>- dumps EDLIN in favor of a full-screen text editor;
>
>I already have a very good full-screen FAST text editor--instantaneous
>response.

The editor they supply is fine - nothing to write home about.  Stick with the one you
know, love and trust.

>>- includes a DOS SHELL that features task switching;
>
>But I MULTITASK with Desqview!  What's the advantage?
>
If you have multitasking software, then this adds nothing.  I noticed that the switcher is
very slow and would suggest getting DV or WIN if you want to use multiple apps at the same
time.  Although the task-switching capabilities are there, they don't seem efficient.

>>- has a much-improved setup routine, which will take advantage of the
>>memory between 640K and 1 meg on 386 and 486 machines;
>
>My QEMM already does that!
Keep QEMM, but keep in mind that even QEMM won't load DOS into high memory.

>>- unlike the notorious version 4.01, has been extensively beta-tested
>>and debugged before release.
>
>I have absolutely no bugs in my system now.
True.  DOS 4.00 scared too many people away from 4.01.  I, too, had no bugs.  The
"no-bugs" DOS 5.0 is mainly the comment that you shouldn't expect problems to start
cropping up once you switch.
>
>Can anybody give me a good reason why I should upgrade to DOS 5.0
>from DOS 4.01???  Getting a measly 5k or 10k more base memory is
>NOT worth $60!!!
>
>Stephen M. Smith  \  +  /
I would beg to differ.  I have seen the addition of more than 30K of memory and applications
like Windows seem to run a tad faster.  The price is also reasonable if you get it from
dealers such as Egghead (I purchased mine from them for 39.99 + tax.)  All in all, don't
expect revolutionary changes and additions.  It provides you with the functionality of
old DOS + QEMM + utilities + DRDOS + 4DOS in one package.  Don't forget the support for
2.88 meg floppies.

[===============================================================]
[ Yevgeny Gurevich	   ___/~\____/~\_/~~~~\__/~\______/~\_  ]
[ 500 Memorial Drive	  |____/~\__/~\__/~\______/~\____/~\__| ]
[ Cambridge, Mass. 02139  |_____/~\/~\___/~~~\_____/~\__/~\___| ]
[ ________________________|______/~~\____/~\________/~\/~\____| ]
[ yev_g@athena.mit.edu    |______/~~\____/~~~~\______/~~\_____| ]
[===============================================================]