Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!cps3xx!gcook From: gcook@cps3xx.UUCP (Greg Cook) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: DOS 4.01 and SHARE.EXE Message-ID: <6307@cps3xx.UUCP> Date: 5 Feb 90 14:50:51 GMT References: <25ccd167.2d5d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Sender: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP Lines: 31 From article <25ccd167.2d5d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, by jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck): > > 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. I seem to remember having some problems when I disabled share. I don`t remember what kind of problems, but I left it on. Later I made two partitions on my hard disk so that one wasn`t >32meg because with share I couldn't get some of my older software to work. This has worked out fine for me so far. But eventually, I`ll want a larger partition. So, I'm asking, is this true? Nobody has experienced any problems without share loaded? I was under the impression that share keeps track of where the files are and without it, it may not be able to find a file it is looking for. Am I way off base? Does anybody know for sure the facts? Many thanks for your input. ========================================================================= Greg Cook Chemistry IS life! Michigan State University Watch for the next generation of Enamines gcook@horus.cem.msu.edu coming to a Journal near you!