X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to opendos-bounces using -f Message-ID: <000101c1cf81$f19e51a0$c03dfea9@atlantis> From: "Matthias Paul" To: References: <20020319044018 DOT 2a45291e DOT burke6337 AT yahoo DOT com> Subject: Re: Novell DOS 7.0, DrDos 7.03 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:56:01 +0100 Organization: University of Technology, RWTH Aachen, Germany MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g2JKBDC23631 Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com On 2002-03-19 Paul Burke wrote: > I'm still confused about DrDos 7.03. I saw the same thing you > did about licenses, but downloaded it anyway. According to the > included doc files, they've solved the Y2K problems, among others. Many! And there are also uncountable smaller useability enhancements and some major new features. > I don't think they ever did put in background serial port > support, though. I called Novell about that, not too long > after they released Novell DOS 7, but they didn't have any > intention of improving the background serial port operations. No, but search the archives of the list for various ways how to configure your modem and the virtualization of serial port in TASKMGR.INI for an improved performance of serial ports in background. You can also find this being discussed in details in the NWDOSTIP.TXT document on my web-site (MPDOSTIP.ZIP). But, yes, thereīs still room for improvement by actually queueing serial data in the VM module. > The only reason I haven't gone ahead with the install is that > I can't decide whether or not it's crippleware. If it is, > then I don't want it as an OS. :) Itīs not crippled in any way. > I'm hoping someone on this list can tell me whether 7.03 is > suddenly going to stop working one day for lack of a license. No, it wonīt. >> Maybe I just should move to PC-DOS. > > I've never used PC-DOS. Is it anywhere near as good as > DrDos 6 was? This depends on what you mean by "good"? ;-) DR DOS 6.0 already had many features not found in other DOSes, or at least not at its time. However, since PC DOS was an OEM version of MS-DOS, it is 99,999% compatible with MS-DOS (there are subtle differences in some of the utilities, as well as in API support), while DR-DOS is only 99% compatible, as it is not based on the MS-DOS code base in any way... But DR-DOS 7.xx memory management and multitasking is far ahead of other DOSes, nonetheless it is more difficult to set up than the memory management in PC DOS 2000, and the DR-DOS EMM386.EXE is not compatible with some very modern machines with lacking ISA-support. This would require some changes in EMM386. Greetings, Matthias -- ; http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mpdokeng.html; http://mpaul.drdos.org