Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!husc6!bu-cs!bucsb.bu.edu!madd
From: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 3.2
Message-ID: <621@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Dec-86 13:32:59 EST
Article-I.D.: bucsb.621
Posted: Tue Dec  2 13:32:59 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Dec-86 22:07:27 EST
References: <1157@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> <855@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim Frost)
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 27

In article <855@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> pre1@sphinx.UUCP (Grant A. Prellwitz) writes:
>In article <1157@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> melvinc@sim.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Melvin Chan) writes:
>>I'm considering upgrading to DOS version 3.2; can someone tell me
>>the major differences between DOS 3.1 and 3.2?  Thanks!
>
>The major differences that I have found are the following bugs:
>DOS3.2 restore doesn't seem to work.  Therefore the entire backup/restore
>  package isn't distributed with the system.

For general information DON'T use BACKUP/RESTORE ever.  Not only does
restore fail to work with v3.2, but the versions of backup/restore are
incompatible between versions (at least between v2.11 and v3.1).  To
top this off, they are rediculously slow.

One of my friends explained then v3.2 is supposed to fix a couple of
bugs in the way DOS handles filesharing and other neat things.
Unfortunately, they fixed only some simple things and made a couple of
other things a bit buggy.  He didn't elaborate on what was buggy, only
that 3.2 was a little dangerous to use.  Me, I'll stick with 3.1.

-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
                   - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker -
UUCP:  ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu
CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs            | BITNET:  cscc71c@bostonu
-------------------------------+---+------------------------------------
"Oh beer, oh beer." -- Me      |      [=(BEER) <- Bud the Beer (cheers!)