Hi,
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:06:22 +0100 (MET), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>> 4) the DR-DOS disk cache (nwcache) works much better than smartdrv
> Not IMHO, it can't hold as large cache as SmartDRV can. I think the same
> applies to himem.sys - isn'r DR-DOS border at 32MB? (MS-DOS 6.x is at 64MB).
Nwcache is better because it doesn't need so much memory for the program
and its data. BTW, 7760 KB cache is enough for 'normal' use (internet,
text and small compiling). Nwcache has no support for VDISK (good) nor for
CD-ROM (bad).
I don't know much about himem.sys. Only that the Win98 himem.sys is very
small in memory (20 kb less than the one from Win95) and it has a higher
limit than _all_ others (maybe Win2000 is better, but I never used it yet).
But emm386.exe from DR-DOS (7.03) is very good and doesn't require himem.sys.
DR-DOS is also good with it's DPMI-support. I know that people who use
DJGPP 2.xx don't like it, but DJGPP has no support for DR-DOS at all.
(programs compiled with it often flush the nwcache!).
But DJGPP is an enormous monster itself and makes huge programs (30 KB
compressed for a clearscreen program, which is ca. 20 bytes in ASM).
Most of the times if emm386.exe causes a system-hang, it's because of badly
written software.
>> 7) the text editor works much smoother
> (Hope you don't take it the wrong way): No way!
The DOS text editors are both not nice, I prefer Pedit
(from www.goldshell.com).
DR-DOS's fdisk is much better than MS-DOS's fdisk. There's only one big
bug in it. If one creates less than 4 part's, they are not counted the
right way. Eg, if one makes only one part., it's called the 4th (?).
The weakest points of DR-DOS (7.03) are:
1) it doen't support FAT32.
2) there's no compiler, assembler or image-viewer part of the distribution.
3) there's bad support from software developers. (eg, most cdplay programs
detect MSCDEX and won't work with NWCDEX).
The weakest points of stand-alone MS-DOS are:
1) it doesn't support FAT32.
2) there's no compiler, assembler or image-viewer part of the distribution.
3) stand-alone versions are too old (6.22 is from 1994), no updates expected.
4) it's too slow and too much memory-consuming.
5) it has no commandline-editing (as far as I know).
6) there is no support at all for passwords and other protection.
7) it is still not available as free download.
I guess that MS should win the race if they bring a newer version, but they
won't. Not that I like MS, but one can see in the Win98 version that they
know enough about it (eg. look at the size of command.COM > 64 KB).
Everything mentioned above is my opinion, based on the use of:
DR-DOS 7.03
MS-DOS 3.30 (yuck)
MS-DOS 6.00
MS-DOS 6.22
MS-DOS 7.00 (Win 95)
MS-DOS 7.02/3 (Win 98)
on the next machines:
386DX-40 /w 8 MB
386DX-40 /w 12 MB
486SX-25 /w 8 MB
486DX2-66 /w 8 MB
486DX2-66 /w 16 MB
486DX2-66 /w 32 MB
486DX2-80 /w 32 MB
486DX2-80 /w 40 MB
P-75 /w 24 MB
PII-266 /w 64 MB
(with various L2 cache, HDD's and video cards)
Of course, if someone feels different, tell us about it.
- Best regards,
- Willy J. Hoogstraten.
- End of message -
