Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!polyslo!jdudeck
From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 4.01 and SHARE.EXE
Message-ID: <25ccd167.2d5d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 5 Feb 90 01:05:42 GMT
References: <1232@shelby.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 20


In article <1232@shelby.Stanford.EDU> roller@jessica.Stanford.EDU (Jason Deines) writes:
>I've always been puzzled as to why DOS 4.01 insists on having SHARE.EXE
>loaded when dealing with large partitions.  All it says in the manual is
>something to the effect that "SHARE must be loaded, or unpredictable
>behavior will result".  Thing is, I've had people tell me that's a lot of
>nonsense, and that they've run without SHARE for months with no problem at
>all.

I have an 80 mb disk, and DOS 4.01, and have never loaded share.  So far
I have had no problems.  The purpose of share is supposed to be to support
file and record locking in a multiuser situation.

>If that's true, I've got a related question:  how do you stop DOS from
>sqawking at you about the lack of SHARE at bootup time?

I don't know how to make it stop squawking.  I just ignore it.  DOS takes
the enlightened view that anybody with a disk bigger than 32 mb must be
running a network.  Who else would have a disk that big?


-- 
John Dudeck                           "You want to read the code closely..." 
jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu             -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching 
ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549          Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.