Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!aptr From: aptr@ur-tut.UUCP (The Wumpus) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att Subject: Re: MS-DOS (3.2) for PC 6300. Message-ID: <2612@ur-tut.UUCP> Date: Sun, 9-Aug-87 12:53:52 EDT Article-I.D.: ur-tut.2612 Posted: Sun Aug 9 12:53:52 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 22:08:32 EDT References: Reply-To: aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (The Wumpus) Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center Lines: 26 In article dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) writes: >The main reason I am not using generic MS-DOS is that I have not yet >written a device driver for the PC 6300's internal clock. Also, >stuff like the mode command might like to know about the different >graphics board in the things. > >Anyone out there made a public domain device driver for the clock, >that somone could install in their config.sys? It'd be a step >towards a little more freedom in chosing your DOS. I have a set of drivers that read the AT&T Clock and set the MS-DOS clock by it and vice-versa. There was also a posting of a similar thing recently. (I am not sure if it was the same because I didn't bother with it.) One other note, I found that IBM-PC DOS 3.2 gained time very quickly (probably could be worded better). PC-DOS 3.3 does not have the same problem. I still find that the clock runs a little fast, but I believe it is because I am using the NEC V30 processor instead of the 8086. The only problem, outside of printing graphics screens, I have found concerning the AT&T ultra High Res mode is that FANSI Console does not let the computer switch to that screen. -- The Wumpus UUCP: {seismo,allegra,decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!aptr BITNET: aptrccss@uorvm Disclaimer: "Who? When? Me? It was the Booze!" - M. Binkley