From: Christopher Croughton Message-Id: <97Sep12.120508gmt+0100.11649@internet01.amc.de> Subject: Re: ClosedDOS??? To: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru (-= ArkanoiD =-) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:10:21 +0100 Cc: crough45 AT amc DOT de, opendos AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: from "-= ArkanoiD =-" at Sep 12, 97 11:09:22 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk -= ArkanoiD =- wrote: > 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). > vt102 is my default console driver. I use DVANSI most of the time, it's optimised for DesqView. [PCDOS] > It is (unlike OpenDOS) _really_ 100% compatible. OK, that's a plus. In fact, it's an essential from my point of view, one reason I never used DrDOS or Novell DOS was that I knew several progams which wouldn't run under them properly. > > 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. 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. > Nope.. They made OS/2 for that.. but i don't like it. It doesn't like one of my machines, and I haven't bothered putting it on the other. > > 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). Was 5 still using EDLIN, or did they have EDIT by then? I don't remember quite what was in 5. Less base memory, certainly (although on a machine with just base memory 3.3 was the last really usable version), that was one of the selling points. Better SMARTDRV. So why do you think 5 is better? Is it more stable in your experience? > Hmm the talk on misc DOS versions and features is [indirectly] OpenDOS - > related,am i wrong? If somebody here thinks it's offtopic we'll take it > off the list.. OK... Chris C