Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!bet
From: bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 3.xx bugs
Message-ID: <885@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 09:32:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.885
Posted: Tue Dec 10 09:32:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 06:45:33 EST
References: <11170@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <281@ur-tut.UUCP>
Reply-To: duccpc!bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III)
Distribution: net
Organization: Duke University Computation Center
Lines: 30

In article <281@ur-tut> pier@ur-tut (Pierre Darmon) writes:
>In article <11170@ucbvax> dillon@ucbvax (Matt Dillon) writes:
>>
>>	As far as 3.X goes, I myself am going to wait a short while, about
>>a year, before getting it.  I've heard many people complain that it's full
>>of bugs.  Have any of you had problems with it?
>>
>>					-Matt
>I have been using DOS 3.0 for over a year and 3.1 for over 5 months with no
>problem whatsoever. 
>
>Pierre Darmon
>University of Rochester
>{allegra|decvax|seismo}!rochester!ur-tut!pier

I've used every version of IBM-PC DOS; the only stable, reasonably
reliable versions I've seen were 1.10 and 2.10. 1.00 Was atrocious; 2.00
was missing the zero-divide interrupt handler; 3.00 and 3.10 have broken
backup/restore commands. Doesn't look like IBM is planning on releasing
a DOS 3.20, and IBM hasn't gotten ANY version X.00 out the door without
serious bugs, so if reliability is a concern I'd have to recommend you
stay with 2.10, until maybe 4.10 comes out.

-Bennett
-- 

"Hypocrisy is the vaseline of social intercourse." (Who said that?)

Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695
UUCP: ...{decvax,seismo,philabs,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!duccpc!bet