On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:36:24 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi
> 30 Sep 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> SH> MS-DOS 7.00 instead of a good version of DOS.
>>> Why is DOS 7 not a good version ??
> SH> DR-DOS comes provided with much better utilities than WIN95 DOS 7.0.
> IMHO you can use dr-dos utilities under ms-dos
Probably some of them. Others would spout out "incorrect dos version"
error, or something like that.
> SH> Also I can always preserve a little more conventional memory with
> SH> DR-DOS 7.02 than I can with WIN95 DOS 7.0.
> 622 KB is enough for me :))
> SH> I think the DOS drivers read the DOS version number.
> but this is a deficiency of the driver, not DOS.
We don't know whether this is a deficiency in the driver or
whether it is a deficiency in the DOS. DOS 7.0 does not identify
itself as such when you run the "ver" command. The output of the
"ver" command on one of my computers is this:
"Windows 95. [Version 4.00.1111]". The DOS *should* have been
designed so that the "ver" command would output "MS-DOS 7.0"
> PS: Try setver
> SH> I think the reason why they won't work for me under WIN95 DOS 7.0 is
> SH> that they aren't right for that DOS version.
> They _ARE_ right ... but they simply have an instruction like this in them:
> if (dos_major >6) {
> cry for mommy
> die
> }
How do we know?
Maybe it works like this:
If (dos_major = Windows 95) {
cry for mommy
die
}
> this is sad, but setver helps
I might try that. First I want to try booting with a DOS 6.22 or
a DOS 5.0 boot disk.
> SH> For that reason I want to run my machine in real DOS mode under
> SH> DR-DOS.
> ms-dos 7 is just as real as dr-dos :))
Yes, I know. I did not mean to imply that MS-DOS 7.0 is not real DOS.
I realize now that my statement was not very clear. Sorry.
> (as long as you typed f8 -> boot to dos, or have boorgui=0 in your
> msdos.sys)
>>> SH> Various DOS versions also have different limitations as to the
>>> SH> maximum size hard drive partition it can recognize.
>>> ??? really ???
> SH> Yes, really. DOS 3.30 will not recognize hard drive partitions
> SH> larger than 32MB.
> yepp ... sorry ...
> I thought that you meant that recent versions from different vendors have
> different max sizes. (eg PC DOS other than drdos)
> SH> Other versions (DOS 5.0, I think) will recognize partitions only up
> SH> to 512MB. There exist some special "BIOS overlay programs" that you
> SH> can install to the master boot record to overcome this problem. The
> SH> BIOS overlay programs are offered by hard drive manufacturers and
> SH> they are specific for certain brands and models of hard drives.
> thos programs fix a BIOS problem in many older bioses.
>>> IMHO not ... the max size for a fat16 partition is 2 GB.
> SH> I think you can use larger partitions than 2GB if you install a
> SH> suitable BIOS overlay program.
> no.
> max partition size of fat16 is 2 GB.
> (65535 clusters a 32 KB)
> SH> I think I will have to use some version of DOS other than WIN95
> SH> DOS 7.0. There is a bug in this WIN version of DOS if it can't use
> SH> DOS drivers that will work with other DOS versions.
> the bug is in the driver
If the driver dies because it sees 7.0 or greater, then the bug is in
the driver. If it dies because it sees Windows 95, then the bug is in
the DOS, because the output of the "ver" command *should* be
"MS-DOS 7.0", but it isn't.
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
