Mail Archives: opendos/2000/07/03/11:07:05
Mark wrote:
>How about some comprehensive listing of the O's and how they differ from
>each other?
But this would be filled with many personal opinions, I'll make a short one
anyway <g>
> Has anyone tried them all Drdos, Pcdos, PTS dos... and is there
>a way to understand what are the best portions of each without having to
>install the dos?
I haveb't tried them all, but that will not stop me from judging them <g>
>Have some advantages that others haven't?
(a measily attempt of a list)
+ good thing
- bad thing
/ neither
MS-DOS:
+ 100% stabel
+ 100% compatabil
+ can create the largest disk cache (32MB for 6.x - ca 36.5MB for 7.x)
+ can use the most XMS (64MB for 6.x - higher for 7.x)
- not sold anymore (ok, it comes bundeld with Win9x)
/ not developed (not much anyway - it isn't needed IMHO)
DR-DOS
+ free for personal use
+ comes with Novell PNW
- Not stable
- Not developed (it could sure need it)
- Extremly bad text editor (I actually prefer using "echo" instead of it)
I don't know about compatability.
Paragon-DOS:
+ FAT32 support
+ shareware demo exists
+ still developed
PTS-DOS
+ shareware demo exists
+ still developed
FreeDOS
+ still developed
- Problems with "large" (above some 500MB) HDs (last I heard anyway -
perhaps someone can confirm/deny this)
/ OpenSourced (just because something is under GPL doesn't it make it great
IMNSHO)
IBM-DOS (aka. PC-DOS)
- Extremly bad text editor (I actually prefer using "echo" instead of it)
Sorry, that's all I remember from it (this was not the latest version that
came out either so it might have changed).
>For example
>how about stability?
>It would be good to know which gives the greatest
>stability without any emm or other flaky errors.
If you want stability there's one 100% sure way to get it - use MS-DOS.
Therefor I switched back from DR-DOS, but kept Novell PNW so that I can
keep my network running.
- Raw text -