Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:08:21 RST
From: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru (-= ArkanoiD =-)
Reply-To: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru
Message-Id: <348@mpak.convey.ru>
To: crough45 AT amc DOT de
Cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: ClosedDOS???
Organization: International Brownian Movement
Lines: 87
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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 |_||_||_|