On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:19:04 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi
> 09 Jan 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> ?? what does 'does not behave very well mean ??
> SH> Good question. The answer depends on the criteria under which a thing
> SH> or a person is being evaluated.
> IMHO the criteria for a OS are that it runs the software without problems,
> and has also no other problems.
> SH> Some would say that a soldier is "well-behaved" if he conducts
> SH> himself according to the way he has been trained, but what if he were
> SH> trained to do things that are wrong?
> interesting ... but not related to DOS ;)))
It is a perfectly good analogy. WIN95 DOS behaves the way the developers
have taught it to behave, but it does things that are wrong.
> SH> Some would say that a device or a machine or a software product is
> SH> "well-behaved" if it functions according to the way it is engineered
> SH> and designed,
> no ... a software is well behaved, if it has no problems, when you work
> with it, and if you can do everything you want with it without error.
Of course that is certainly the way a software product *should* behave if it
is designed and engineered perfectly. The more parts it has, the more
things to go wrong. That applies to any kind of system. Consult Murphy.
> SH> Here are just some of the things I don't like about WIN95 DOS:
> SH> It has too large a footprint and too great an appetite for memory.
> ??? in win98 DOS I have 623KB free ... this is enough for me ...
> and it can move more to UMB than normal DOS
> (buffershigh, fileshigh ....)
Thanks for that info. I didn't know about buffershigh and fileshigh.
I'll have to try it.
> SH> For this reason there are many DOS apps that simply will not run
> SH> under WIN95 DOS.
> ??? an app that does not run with 623 KB of mem IS crap
Have you tried PC-PINE? A really nice program, except for its voracious
appetite for DOS memory.
> SH> Compare COMMAND.COM for WIN95 DOS: 93,812 bytes, as
> SH> opposed to COMMAND.COM for DR-DOS 7.02: 66,657 bytes.
> DOS is the kernel :))
> You are free to use another command interpreter .... like I do ;)
Isn't the DOS version determined by the version of COMMAND.COM in use?
Maybe you've got me on that one. I don't know.
> SH> The COPY command under WIN95 DOS will not overwrite by default. You
> SH> have to either respond to a prompt or use a parameter to suppress the
> SH> prompt. This is a hassle, IMNSHO.
> this is not DOS ... DOS is the kernel ...
I am lost at this point. Isn't the kernel the component that loads the
internal commands?
> SH> WIN95 DOS lacks some necessary utilities, such as the UNDELETE
> SH> command.
> this is not DOS ;)
OK, so it is not DOS, but it is a DOS utility that *should* have been
included, as it is in all other relatively recent DOS versions I have
worked with.
> For me the main feature is a stable kernel ... and I never had any problems
> with M$-DOS 6 or higher ...
> I had problems with novell/drdos
> SH> Upon booting, WIN95 DOS loads a GUI by default.
> this is no bug, but a feature ;)))
> This gives you the ability to run win32 and win16 programs ;)
You mean to say that a win32 program would not otherwise be able to run
unless DOS were to boot a GUI by default? I cannot understand why this
should be so. Maybe it is so, as you imply, but I can't undertand why.
> SH> You have to either respond to some prompts or resort to a hassle and
> SH> read some manuals in order to figure out how to fix this behavior.
> SH> This is a very poor design feature, IMNSHO.
> no ... you buy win9x, and get win9x
> DOS is just an additional thing ...
DOS is not just an additional thing. DOS is required in order to run
Windows.
> SH> Whether to automatically load a GUI upon booting is something that
> SH> ought to be called or commented out in AUTOEXEC.BAT, as it is in the
> SH> normal versions of Windows (3.x). I don't know why the developers of
> SH> WIN95 wanted to complicate the booting procedure.
> no ... exactly the other way round ... they want dummy usability.
> Imagine the new computer user buying a AMD duron 700 with 128 MB ram, he
> starts his computer and there is a C:\>_ he will bring it back, and claim,
> that his computer is broken.
I don't have to imagine it. I have experienced it! I once set up a donated
386 for use by a local civic association. I had set it up so that upon
booting it would display a very nice batch menu, and a C\>_ would appear just
below the menu text. With this kind of setup they didn't have any notion
whatsoever as to how to load and run any of the programs, although all the
elements of my batch menu performed perfectly. They then asked me to install
Windows 3.1 and to provide ikons representing all their MS-DOS programs. Well,
I then did as they had requested, although I thought it was really a
hair-brained idea and I told them so. They wanted the machine to boot to the
Windows 3.1 GUI so that they could load the DOS programs by pointing to an
ikon and clicking on it. They wanted me to install Windows 3.1 even though
they had no plans for ever installing any Windows programs other than those
that come provided with the software package. The machine had a very small
hard drive and I thought they were crazy for wanting to waste all that disk
space just so they could run Windows. Well, they just wouldn't listen to my
recommendations, and I most reluctantly did what they wanted me to do. I
installed Windows for them and then they were happy and they were most
grateful for my help, despite my arguments with them against their way of
wanting to do things. The way to please others often isn't as easy as
simply doing what is really best for them.
> Imagine the poweruser who bought a new computer ...
> Athlon 1 GHz, 256 MB RAM, 50 GB HDD ...
> he will not use DOS, and therefor be limited to a single task !
> (OK ... he will also not run Win ... because he hates rebooting, so DOS/Win
> will be deleted, and some unixish OS will be installed)
> Conclusio:
> 99% of the people buying a new computer do NOT want/need DOS ...
> so M$ doesn't advertise it.
> In reality it's the other way round ...
> aehh this is still the old DOS windows 4 based stuff sick ... I hate dos.
> So that's the reason why Windows millenium hides DOS even better.
>>> I'm using the DOSes from both versions, and have not noticed any bad
>>> behaviour in years.
> SH> Your criteria for evaluating behavior in this case is based upon
> SH> whether you think the DOSes are performing as engineered and
> SH> designed.
> no
> For me it runs every DOS program I have tried without any problems ...
> I don't care what it was designed for, as long as it does what I want it to
> do without any problems.
>>> SH> Given a machine with Windows 95 installed on a hard drive having
>>> SH> a FAT 16 partition, and the partition's size not being too big
>>> SH> to be recognized by your favorite DOS version,
>>> if it is fat16, than the partition size can't be too big ...
>>> win95/98 IS dos, so there can't be a partition size which windows
>>> 'understands' and dos not.
> SH> If you have WIN95 installed on a 100 MB partition on your C: drive,
> SH> and you boot to a floppy being a DOS 3.30 system disk, then your DOS
> SH> will not recognize the C: drive because DOS 3.30 cannot recognize a
> SH> partition greater than 32 MB
> and if you boot from a CP/M disk it will not recognize the partition either
> ..... <SCNR>
Because the partition is too big and/or CPM doesn't understand a DOS
partition, whatever the case.
So much for now,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by Arachne, www graphical browser for DOS
-- Visit the Arachne DOS Browser Home Page, http://home.arachne.cz
