Many thanks for your response, Jerry!
> If memory serves me properly, the IBM DOS versions were (roughly) about
> one number higher in comparison to the MS-DOS equivalents. In any case,
> having used both MS-DOS 5.0 and PC DOS 5.02, I'd say that the latter
> would approximate what you experienced with Microsoft's DOS -- and perhaps
> even exceed your expectations. In my own practice, though, I haven't
> had any problems with the performance of PC DOS 7 on 486-class machines;
> I usually install PC DOS 5.02 or 3.3 on 386 or lower systems.
>
I'll certainly give 5.02 a spin, on the strength of what you report.
I found with 7 that there was a definite delay on the 486s between
typing a command at the prompt and the programme appearing on the
screen. That delay simply wasn't there with MSDOS 5 - strange, I know,
that MS should be quicker than something else, but there it is!! Last
time I saw that sort of effect was when I had a Dr. Solomon antivirus
thing installed that had a quick look at an executable before it
allowed it to run. But there was nothing like that installed when I
tried PCDOS 7 - and it didn't seem to make a difference whether I had
the RAMboost installed or not. In fact, my manual tweaks with 'loadhigh'
etc. gave a better result low RAM wise than RAMboost seemed able to do.
Anyway - thanks for your tip. I'll try it soon.
All the best,
Gerald.
