On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 at 17:55, Rugxulo via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > I never used DOSShell much. I always used other file managers
I wasn't really talking about its use as a file manager. Personally I barely touched that. I don't need or massively want a file manager. The uses of DOSshell that I am talking about are as a program launcher and (optional but very handy) program switcher. > VCPI was a superset of EMS, right? I don't think so, no. > The other complication was the different versions (e.g. XMSv2 versus > the bigger 386 variant v3) I don't think I remember _versions_ of XMS. EMS, yes. Do you have any reference or link? > DR-DOS 5 was their equivalent to MS-DOS 3.3. (Version numbers were a > marketing ploy.) No, not really. DR-DOS version numbers were a fiction, more or less, yes, that much is true. But they were a good and pragmatic one: MS-DOS was a re-implementation of CP/M-80 on 8086. So MS's OS was derived from DR's OS. DR didn't do any direct equivalents of MS's versions 1.x, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1 or 3.2. It only decided to get into that market after MS released 3.3 and Compaq released the very important Compaq DOS 3.31. (Note, "Compaq DOS" *not* CDOS because CDOS was comething else.) Compaq DOS 3.31 was the version that defined the extension to FAT16 which allowed hard disk partitions over 32MB in size. There were others, many of 'em, but it's Compaq DOS 3.31 that bundled a format that an external 3rd party addon had first implemented. (I think, but am not sure, it was Golden Bow System's VFeature that first implemented it.) The first DR-DOS generally available was DR-DOS 3.4 and you couldn't buy it at retail: it was only made available to PC OEMs: computer vendors. The version number was chosen to indicate that it was higher than but comparable to MS-DOS 3.3 (and Compaq DOS 3.31) but less than MS/PC DOS 4.0. I am not sure but I don't think that there were any earlier versions called "DR DOS" -- there were earlier OSes, such as DR's DOS Plus, but that is a different and not entirely compatible or comparable OS. I won't go into why as it's not relevant here. DR didn't do a DR DOS version 4.0 because PC/MS DOS 4.x had a bad reputation for being memory hogs. The only 2 desirable features in PC/MS DOS 4.0x were disk partitions up to 2GB, and DOSshell -- and DR DOS didn't have DOSshell. So, DR DOS leapfrogged PC/MS DOS 4.x and went straight to 5. That was, AFAIK, the first version you could buy at retail. MS-DOS 5 followed DR DOS 5, imitated its features, and also imitated its sales model: you could buy a copy and install it on your computer. Earlier versions only came bundled with computers. > I believe "task swapping" was one of the main benefits of a 286. I am not sure what you mean. It's not a 286 hardware feature, no. It's a feature of DOS-compatible OSes of the 286 era. It's a software feature not a hardware one. But it was enabled by XMS memory management, something that a DOS could only do on a 286 or later. > For > instance, DR-DOS 7.03 supports "task swapping" on 286s but only > "multitasks" on 386s. Yes, because it uses 386 hardware features to do multitasking. > (This probably also goes back to IBM's own > TopView, which predated DesqView.) I don't think so, no. I don't think TopView did much multitasking at all, but the thing here is that the DesqView style of multitasking is done in software and everything has to fit into conventional memory: all apps share the base 640kB of RAM. The later 386 type of multitasking doesn't: it's using hardware to do it it and the software is running in protect mode and has up to 4GB of virtual address space to play with. It's a really big important difference. > > Anyone who wasn't booting straight into Windows, and who still used > > DOS apps, I configured the PC to boot straight into DOSShell instead. > > I made menu entries for all their DOS apps, and one for Windows 3.x > > too. > > Clearly OS/2 and/or Windows were considered the future. (Novell's > attempt at improving DR-DOS failed against Win95.) Clearly according to whom? I do not see how this is a response to me at all. > > [6] By 1993-1994 most PCs booted straight into Windows 3.1 but I made > > launchers for their DOS apps in Program Manager, and in the > > background, I hand-optimised their RAM with EMM386.EXE so there was > > lots of free RAM for those big power-user DOS apps. > > Win95 was better. (I still have my overformatted "upgrade" Win95 floppies.) That seems a bit like saying that the wheel is better than fire. It's a different thing that happened at a later time. They are not comparable. > NT was not aimed at DOS software. It was incomplete in DOS support in > many ways (and had a much higher footprint). I disagree but I don't think it's relevant. > NT also wasn't (at that > time) intended for gaming. Well, no, agreed. > > DOSShell was a great DOS app launcher and file manager, but didn't have > > apps. > > Apparently "Visi On" in 1983 was the first (and yes, it did allow > third-party apps in "restricted subset of C" for its VM.) I don't really see any connection here, TBH...? > Oh, don't forget Georg's work on the XFDOS desktop: > > * https://sourceforge.net/projects/fltk-dos/ I don't think I knew about it at all, I confess, but I do not see the relevance here. Sorry but it seems like it's off at a tangent. You are responding to my mail, quoting me, but the responses are either off at tangents and not really direct responses, or they occasionally offer corrections which seem to often be, well, er, how can I diplomatically say this, er, well... wrong. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
