Mail Archives: opendos/1997/09/12/06:40:11
nuqneH,
In message <97Sep12.120508gmt+0100 DOT 11649 AT internet01 DOT amc DOT de> Christopher Croughton writes:
>
> > Yep,i use it too but i can't call it "a _good_ vt100 emulation".
>
> It works with the places I've tried. Although most real VT100s wouldn't,
> in fact - the VT100 is very limited by modern standards (yes, I do have
> one, a real DEC VT100).
[Assume we are not speaking about original vt100 without memory option.
they are _really_ rare thins]
Hmm really? I have one too (built-in my Digital Rainbow) - and i've _never_
seen _any_ emulator close to it - even in graphical environments like
MacOS (yep,i have a Macintrash,just for fun) or windoze. No smooth scrolling,
no double height/double width characters.. And i've _never_ had any problems
with Unix or VMS software and real vt100. Most of the emulators are far from
real vt100 even if you don't mind those excellent things - when i try to
use smth like say,term90 from Norton Commander and elm on unix system or
irc client or smth like that i have to press ^L every few seconds to keep
something on the screen because emulation is buggy!
about vt102.{com|sys}.. the thing it does not have is graphic characters.
> > > Which other features does PCDOS have that I don't already have?
> >
> > Utility set that is much better than M$ - compressed filesystem (Stacker),
> > disk defragmentation software (Central Point) other things like that..
>
> MSDOS 6.22 has a compressed filesystem, which I deleted as soon as I could
> - I have an intense dislike of those things. Too much RAM, too slow and
> make recovering data near impossible.
PC DOS 7 has Stacker,really the best one. _far_ better than doublespace
(or how was it called)?
> It has DEFRAG, based on the Norton/Symantec defragmenter. Not very
> configurable (it complains about 'unreadable' files but doesn't tell
> you which ones or allow you to override it, for instance) but a lot
> faster than the Norton one.
I always prefered Central Point one.. btw i've seen disks with contents
damaged with Symantec defragmenter - and never seen any damaged by CP.
> > > Why? I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm interested in what you see as
> > > deficiencies in 6.22. I upgraded from 5.0, you see, and I saw it as an
> > > upgrade.
> >
> > Hmm and what new features have you got? I just could not get the "upgrade"
> > feeling..
>
> Defrag, undelete and help, at least (and all of them dropped in DOS7,
> at least as DOS utilities; there are some Win95/GUI versions of them).
Help and undelete were there from v5.. and i already have defrag program.
> Was 5 still using EDLIN, or did they have EDIT by then? I don't
> remember quite what was in 5.
I think replacing gwbasic and edlin with qbasic and edit was a _major_
mistake..
> Less base memory, certainly
With QEMM - no.
> (although
> on a machine with just base memory 3.3 was the last really usable
> version),
Sure.. I can't figure out why some idiot burned ROM DOS 5.0 to my mec v30
palmtop..
> that was one of the selling points. Better SMARTDRV.
SMARTDRV can not be better or worse,it is complete _shit_.
..and delayed write with it is _dangerous_,it damages data!
Use any pd cache instead.
> So why do you think 5 is better? Is it more stable in your experience?
Somehow..
--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Must be a visit from the dead.. _| o |_ | | _|| | / _||_| |_ |_ |_
CU in Hell .......... Arkan#iD |_ o _||_| _||_| / _| | o |_||_||_|
- Raw text -