Media Share 9/MEDIASHARE_09.ISO/utility/dos5gbag.zip/DOS5-CIS.ZIP/DOS5-CIS

Text File | 1991-07-08 | 563KB | 17,538 lines

s 1

MS DOS 5.0 Forum Read Menu

Read
 1 [ALL] messages
 2 Message NUMBER
 3 WAITING messages for you (0)

Search [all] messages
 4 FROM (Sender)
 5 SUBJECT
 6 TO (Recipient)

Enter choice !1

#: 9568 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  07:08:22
Sb: Devicehigh & Win3
Fm: John Pickens 73157,2410
To: Bill McNeal 76517,1336 (X)


I did a mem/d and nothing was displayed above A000.  ?

Well, for now, forcing the page frame at E000 seems to work for me and gives me
a lot of memory.  Now if I just can get manifest to work....

Thx, JP

Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !s

#: 9903 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:46:13
Sb: Devicehigh & Win3
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Bill McNeal 76517,1336 (X)

Bill,

The mouse driver requires more space at load time than it eventually occupies.
The driver has a lot of code, particularly video drivers, which are loaded into
memory, then discarded if not necessary.  So, the driver needs enough space to
load in its full state (i.e. the size of the file), then shrinks down to its
resident size.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9930 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:50:23
Sb: Devicehigh & Win3
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: John Pickens 73157,2410 (X)

John,

EMM386 attempts to be cautious in its use of UMB's--if it is unsure of the
availability of a region, it leaves it alone.  On one of my machines here, I
can get another 32K or so if I force some includes.  The reasoning is that if
you don't use it, big deal, you use conventional memory; if you use it when you
shouldn't, it can hang the machine.

(I know conventional memory is a "big deal", but what's the use of freeing it
if the machine's gonna hang?)

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9931 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:50:33
Sb: #Devicehigh & Win3
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Bill McNeal 76517,1336 (X)

Bill,

There is an EMMEXCLUDE option available for use in the [386Enh] section of
WIN.INI which may help the UAE situation you are experiencing.

Regarding the speed issue, what have you noticed is slower under MS-DOS 5.0?

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10045 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  13:51:10
Sb: #9931-#Devicehigh & Win3
Fm: Peter Colley 76012,27
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd, when does one use the EMMEXCLUDE in the system.ini as opposed to using an
X= in the config.sys?  Are there any rules-of-thumb?  Pete




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10833 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:49:37
Sb: #10045-Devicehigh & Win3
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Peter Colley 76012,27

Peter,

My rule of thumb for when to use the EMMEXCLUDE option on EMM386 and/or Windows
is that I synchronize them.  I feel that if MS-DOS can't touch an area, neither
should Windows.  Since I do not know the internals of Windows well enough to
know when and what areas of memory it would use, I just make sure that it
doesn't touch anything that MS-DOS shouldn't.  Perhaps the Windows technicians
would say that's too cautious, but until I know what Windows is doing, that's
how I will do it.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9569 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  07:14:51
Sb: #Do YOU HATE 5.0 Format?
Fm: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514
To: John Lorentz 74007,3342

Are these top of the line, "name brands?". I suspect that this is related to
the fact that I am using bargain basement disks....

If others are not having problems, I should experiment further.

Thanks for the answer....Bruce

There are 3 Replies.

#: 9962 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  07:51:29
Sb: #9569-Do YOU HATE 5.0 Format?
Fm: Bob Reagan 75236,1430
To: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514

Bruce,

I also use "el cheapos" and have had no problem with FORMAT.




#: 10104 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  20:01:03
Sb: #9569-Do YOU HATE 5.0 Format?
Fm: Bob Retelle 76702,1466
To: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514

Bruce...  unrelated to DOS 5.0, but a similar set of circumstances in a way..

I recently tried to format some disks using EZFORMAT.. it reported they all had
bad Track 0's..  using DOS Format though, they all formatted just fine..

This was a mix of 720K and 1.44 Meg on a Packard-Bell '386SX under DOS 4.01..

And EZFORMAT had been reliable up until a few days ago...

Maybe it's the sunspots..?

BobR

#: 10127 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  22:45:37
Sb: #9569-Do YOU HATE 5.0 Format?
Fm: David Arnold 72137,355
To: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514

Are you sure you have never formated these disks at 720K before trying them
at 1.44?  If you are formating  high, are they HD disks?


#: 10044 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  13:43:25
Sb: Do YOU HATE 5.0 Format?
Fm: Dave Marsh 72510,2326
To: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514

Bruce,

FWIW, I have not had any of the problems you mention with 5.0 format.  In fact,
I find it to considerably faster (as I do with all functions under DOS 5.0)
than formatting under previous DOS versions.

Dave



#: 10093 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  18:55:24
Sb: #Do YOU HATE 5.0 Format?
Fm: Scott McVicker 71171,3060
To: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514

Dear Bruce...  Not that this might help, But..  I recently installed a new hard
disk.  The installation program required I make a bootable 3 1/2" disk to start
the system "clean" prior to initializing the hard disk.  DOS5.0 was already
installed.  Tried to format the 3 1/2" disk but it would not copy the system
files.  Tried Norton Safe Format but the disk was subsequently pronouced
Non-System at boot up time.  Look, Look, Look.. and then... into Xtree Gold to
find out that the two previous system files, ibmdos.sys and ibmio.sys were
still present from my previous version.  ACK! Deleted these and whattayaknow?
Format's feathers were smoothed and I went on with my installation.    See what
you think.  Scott.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10144 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  04:19:17
Sb: #10093-Do YOU HATE 5.0 Format?
Fm: Ted Burghart (BTS) 75250,21
To: Scott McVicker 71171,3060 (X)

Scott,

Interesting... Perhaps what I experienced yesterday wasn't as much of an oddity
as I thought. I was preparing to do some major fooling around with my
configuration so I formatted a 1.2M disk in A: with the /s switch. The system
files were properly copied to the disk and I added the requisite goodies to
bail me out if my HD disapeared. I rebooted from the floppy (without removing
it from the drive at any time) and at first thought "wow, this is the fastest
boot from a floppy I've ever seen" until I realized there were program messages
going by that weren't on the floppy. With no error messages or any other
indications of what was going on the system had booted from the HD! Again
without touching the floppy I checked it out and all indications were that it
was a perfectly readable bootable disk!

Since I write software I routinely boot from floppies with DOS versions
2.0-4.01 to test compatibility and I've never had anything like this happen
before. Further investigation showed that the problem could be reproduced about
50% of the time by 1) changing to drive A:, 2) changing anything on the disk
(editing or copying files) and 3) doing a soft boot. If I change back to drive
C:-F: (didn't try B:, hmmm) before rebooting the system boots from the floppy
and a hard reset allways boots from the floppy.

This is very strange indeed...

- Ted.



#: 9571 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  07:23:20
Sb: LEWP & MSDOS 5
Fm: Dennis Williamson 73260,350
To: Dirk L. Boysen 76525,2215 (X)

You may need to use SETVER to tell LEWP that it is running in an older version
of DOS.

By the way, if you do find that you have to switch, choose MS-Word.  You'll
find the transition easier and you'll like it a lot better (than WP).  I used
to use LEWP and switched to Word about seven years ago.  I have to support WP
users, though, and it's a real pain because of the nonsensical, kludgey,
haphazard way that it is thrown together.  And besides, it really "chaps my
hide" that there are so many large differences between WP 5.0 and 5.1.  Usually
a change in the fractional part of a version number indicates a minor change or
correction.  Not so in this case.

Dennis



#: 9948 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  05:23:11
Sb: LEWP & MSDOS 5
Fm: Scott Crom 71470,3024
To: Dirk L. Boysen 76525,2215 (X)

Jumping in here -- I too have an old LEWP on a 386/33 machine, and have just
upgraded to DOS5.0 (without troubles, by the way).  Running SETVER LE.EXE 3.1
makes LE work OK for me (it makes the DOS version look like 3.1 to LEWP).
                                         Scott

FWIW, WordPerfect is *not* that hard to learn (I was pushing 60 at the time),
and there's no comparison of their capacities.  I keep LEWP around for a
daughter's occasional use, since she's used to it on her old machine, a Leading
Edge D.



#: 10352 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:06:19
Sb: #LEWP & MSDOS 5
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Dirk L. Boysen 76525,2215 (X)

Dirk,

If SETVER doesn't work, you could always start using EDIT which comes with DOS
5. It's a very simple text-editor. If it's too simple then you're kinda stuck.
I'm totally unfamiliar with Leading Edge's word processor, but, do they have an
upgrade?

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10743 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  19:20:04
Sb: #10352-LEWP & MSDOS 5
Fm: Dirk L. Boysen 76525,2215
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Thanks for the help, unfortunately to no avail. I tried SETVER but still get a
blank screen with a blinking cursor.  Pushing CTRL-ALT-DEL to get out gets me
the title screen with no function so another CTRL-ALT-DEL gets me out. I've
tried not loading DOS into upper memory, no TSRs, no SMARTDRV, nothing except
DOS & LEWP.  Any other hints??   Thanks, Dirk.

#: 9572 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  07:24:32
Sb: #EMM386 won't load -HELP
Fm: Lyle Groome 75136,1033
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Thanks for the advice, but placing dos=high,umb before device=emm386.exe didn't
work.  Since I posted that message I have found that the problem is in the BIOS
of my Tandon 486 (some problem with the way its handles the A20 line, I think).
I have ordered the new BIOS.  (For anyone with a Tandon 486: the latest version
of the BIOS is 3.72).

BTW, the only problem I've had is trying to load EMM386.  Extended memory works
fine, with DOS loaded high, even with Borland's TKERNEL.  I have so few drivers
and TSRs (mainly MOUSE) that I don't really need to put them in the UMBs
anyway.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10522 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:54:52
Sb: #9572-EMM386 won't load -HELP
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Lyle Groome 75136,1033 (X)

okey dokey. Good Luck Lyle.  Thanx for the TANDON tip.....


Dev



#: 9573 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  07:31:25
Sb: #ms dos file bug
Fm: Jim Krasno 76627,224
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157

MSDOS 5.0 ERROR:

In general, I have been pleased with MSDOS 5.0, however I have found an error.
The shell does not update it's file directory after a file has been created or
changed by a program operating within the shell.  An example of how frustrating
this is follows.

I am writing this file in a word processor running in the shell.  Next I intend
to download this file to Compuserve. Then for the shell to find the file to
show it on a directory, I have to exit and re enter the shell or select another
drive's directory to force a file update.

Jim PS.  When running procomm 2.4.2 last week, I got a divide error and was
bombed out out of the procomm program.  Reinstalling DOS 4.01 was no help.
Installing a backup copy of procomm was no help. Procomm magicly started
working again later, and I am back up in MSDOS 5.0 with still no problems.  Any
Ideas?

x \x


exit

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10537 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:57:01
Sb: #9573-ms dos file bug
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Jim Krasno 76627,224

I hope this article excerpt from the Microsft KnowledgeBase helps you. You will
find it a very useful tool.  Just type go mskb at the ! prompt:


Summary:

 Files and/or directories you create when shelled out of MS-DOS Shell
 will not display when you exit back to Shell. To have Shell display
 the file created at the DOS prompt, place the cursor over the drive
 letter to select the drive where the file or directories were created.
 This will force the Shell to reread the drive information.

 If using MS-DOS version 5.0, you can also force the DOSSHELL to reread
 a disk by choosing the Refresh option under the View menu or pressing
 F5.  The current directory can be reread by pressing <ctrl-F5>.

 When you shell out to the command prompt from Shell, a temporary file
 is created to store status information while you are shelled out.
 Returning to Shell by typing "exit" (without the quotation marks) at
 the command prompt causes Shell to read this status information. This
 temporary file will not reflect any changes made at the command
 prompt.

You've got me on the PROCOMM behaviour.  Have you called the Procomm fellas?


Dev



#: 9574 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  07:33:34
Sb: Knock,Knock
Fm: Jerry Fisher (MS Sysop) 76711,22
To: Craig Lewis 70006,2064 (X)

Craig,

We provide technical support here in the MSDOS forum for user related
questions.  Our section leaders are unable to provide support for any
developmental issues relating to DOS.  We provide the Developers Exchange as an
area where developers can share information and assist one another here on the
forum.

I have forwarded your message to Todd Martin, one of our SL's, who can explain
the other DOS support offerings and if there is a technical reference
available.

Jerry

#: 9934 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:51:04
Sb: Knock,Knock
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Craig Lewis 70006,2064 (X)

Craig,

This forum is a place for users to ask questions/report difficulties they are
having.  However, it is not an area where MS personnel answer programming
questions.  There is a special area for developers to have conversations:
Section 10, the Developers' Exchange.

The Programmer's Reference is available at most book stores now, with a list
price of $24.95.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9575 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  07:34:24
Sb: DOS 5.0 & Joseph Stalin
Fm: Steven Davies 71230,452
To: Tom Collins/Joan Cecil 71621,3132 (X)

Thanks a whole lot, I'll give it a try.

<< Steven E. Davies >>

#: 9646 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:54:53
Sb: DOS 5.0 & Joseph Stalin
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Steven Davies 71230,452

Steven,

Have you tried your programs without Autoexec.bat or Config.sys on boot-up?
Have you tried them with DOS=LOW, then without Himem.sys? These tests will
narrow down the problem a bit and might reveal the source of the problems and
then the solution. Are your compiled programs small memory model? If they are,
have you tried LOADFIX?

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9576 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  07:35:30
Sb: Download problem
Fm: Jerry Fisher (MS Sysop) 76711,22
To: Christian Daschill 70053,764

Christian,

I've heard from three people about this but I have downloaded the file without
a problem.  I'll keep checking and let you know if I find out anything.

Jerry

#: 9577 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  07:36:12
Sb: #MOUSE5.ZIP in DL1
Fm: Jerry Fisher (MS Sysop) 76711,22
To: Maurice Gordon 76012,2515 (X)

Murray,

Please see my message #9576.

Jerry

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10004 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:00:51
Sb: #9577-MOUSE5.ZIP in DL1
Fm: Maurice Gordon 76012,2515
To: Jerry Fisher (MS Sysop) 76711,22 (X)

Read your reply and message 9576 and tried download again with a different
protocol.  Download was failing on CompuserveB.  Download was OK using YMODEM.
My only question is, "Y?" (pun intended).

Murray

#: 9578 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  07:36:48
Sb: #Bad file?
Fm: Jerry Fisher (MS Sysop) 76711,22
To: Jim Schneider [SFForum] 76702,435 (X)

Please see message number 9576

Jerry

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9602 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  10:28:54
Sb: #9578-Bad file?
Fm: Jim Schneider [SFForum] 76702,435
To: Jerry Fisher (MS Sysop) 76711,22 (X)

Thanks, Jerry, I came back later and downloaded the file using CIM.




#: 9579 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  07:55:16
Sb: #COMPAQ 286 & MS DOS 5.0
Fm: Jerald M. Savin 73670,2713
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate,

Thanks for the response.  CONFIG.SYS contains
                device=mouse.sys
                device=c:\dos\ansi.sys
                files=20
                buffers=20
This system is pretty much vanilla.  The problem does not occur in DOS.  I will
expand EGA.SYS from the distribution disks over the 4th/5th and message back.
Thanks.                         -- Jerry.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10301 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:49:23
Sb: #9579-COMPAQ 286 & MS DOS 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jerald M. Savin 73670,2713

Jerald,

You also might want to remove ANSI.SYS. Are you running your word processor
from the dosshell?

Nate



#: 9580 S6/Command Usage
    03-Jul-91  08:15:12
Sb: #Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Martin Malina 76176,1751
To: All

I used to load my buffers via the "/X" switch in Dos 4.01. I've been told that
in 5.0 the buffers will get loaded high automatically if Dos is loaded high,
but I can't find any confirmation of that (on a cursory perusal of the manual).
BTW, I'm using Qemm 5.13 with Dos 5, not Himem.Sys.

Clarifications, anyone?



There are 3 Replies.

#: 9994 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  10:16:48
Sb: #9580-#Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Al 72451,3315
To: Martin Malina 76176,1751 (X)

I think the buffers do go up automatically.  I ran several checks with the mem
command with different buffers settings, from buffers=10 through buffers=40, &
mem reported the same amount of memory each time.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10196 S6/Command Usage
    05-Jul-91  08:54:32
Sb: #9994-Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Martin Malina 76176,1751
To: Al 72451,3315

Thanks. That seems to confirm my own experience.

#: 10165 S6/Command Usage
    05-Jul-91  07:28:45
Sb: #9580-#Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Dennis Williamson 73260,350
To: Martin Malina 76176,1751 (X)

I'm using QEMM's FILES command to load my file handles high.  Their BUFFERS
command will not work with DOS versions higher than 3.x, though.

Dennis



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10197 S6/Command Usage
    05-Jul-91  08:59:18
Sb: #10165-#Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Martin Malina 76176,1751
To: Dennis Williamson 73260,350 (X)

I've been doing that, too, for as long as I've been using QEMM. When I couldn't
use their BUFFERS.COM, I happened on BUFFERS /X (in my CONFIG.SYS) as a
solution. I wasn't too sure about the syntax in DOS 5 however. All in all QEMM
+ DOS 5 seem to be co-existing stably (I'm not a constant Windows user, so I
can't vouch for incompatibilities in that area).

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10328 S6/Command Usage
    05-Jul-91  13:34:44
Sb: #10197-Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Dennis Williamson 73260,350
To: Martin Malina 76176,1751 (X)

FILES.COM is now the only part of QEMM that I use (other than Manifest), since
DOS 5 does what I need.  I was surprised that FILES.COM worked without QEMM
being present - and I'm only doing it for kicks, now.  Since my experience with
DOS 4 is limited (I refused to use it), I was unaware of the buffers /x
parameter.  Anyway, the /x uses expanded memory and I don't and since SMARTDRV
does its job for me, I set buffers=10 and don't worry about it.

Dennis



#: 10827 S6/Command Usage
    07-Jul-91  01:48:40
Sb: #9580-#Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Martin Malina 76176,1751 (X)

Martin,

It is true that if MS-DOS 5.0 is loading into the HMA, the buffers will also be
up there.  Keep in mind that at about 50 BUFFERS, there isn't enough room, and
MS-DOS 5.0 and its buffers will be loaded low.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10946 S6/Command Usage
    07-Jul-91  17:06:51
Sb: #10827-#Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

If the machine has more than just the 64K of UMB, can the buffers figure be
larger and still leave DOS high?  Interesting...



There is 1 Reply.

#: 11055 S6/Command Usage
    08-Jul-91  09:29:52
Sb: #10946-Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Bill Foley 76666,1572
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202

DOS=HIGH loads into the HMA not UMBs.  I'm not the expert, but I think the HMA
is limited to the first 64K above 1M.

#: 11020 S6/Command Usage
    08-Jul-91  06:47:58
Sb: #10827-Buffers /X in Dos 5 ?
Fm: Martin Malina 76176,1751
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Thanks. I finally got that straightened out (though I'm still tweaking QEMM
<g>).

#: 9582 S9/Shareware (MS-DOS)
    03-Jul-91  08:19:51
Sb: #use5 problem
Fm: Mark Williams 100012,2116
To: james haley 71121,3644 (X)

I have to say that I too was very pleased to see the USE and UNUSE programs -
until I used them! I'm afraid that I have not managed to have USE operate
correctly yet. Specifically, if I run unuse on, say, directory C:\ABC sometimes
it disappears, sometimes not. Also, I note that running it twice with the same
parameter (directory) often results in the path disappearing then reappearing
(unuse both times).

I'd love to have these commands available but they seem a little flaky right
now. BTW, I'm running DOS 5.

Cheers, MCW




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10032 S9/Shareware (MS-DOS)
    04-Jul-91  12:40:38
Sb: #9582-use5 problem
Fm: james haley 71121,3644
To: Mark Williams 100012,2116 (X)

I'll try to reproduce the problem.  If you could, email me a before and after
output from your SET command.  The output from MEM/P could also help.

#: 9859 S9/Shareware (MS-DOS)
    03-Jul-91  20:51:50
Sb: #use5 problem
Fm: Robert Fitzgerald 73577,222
To: james haley 71121,3644 (X)

A lightning strike that took out 3 machines and five phones kept me busy today,
(all minor problems) but now I know you are interested, I will try get clear
reproduceable symtoms for you.

We have a bat file for starting the Novell SNA gateway program. use path exec
tsr load unuse path

I believe they were getting an out of environment space error under dos 3.3.
The same batch file worked for me under 5.0, but I noticed that the id=robert
paramenter was gone after I ran the bat file.

I will get you more, but probably not before friday.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10031 S9/Shareware (MS-DOS)
    04-Jul-91  12:36:06
Sb: #9859-use5 problem
Fm: james haley 71121,3644
To: Robert Fitzgerald 73577,222 (X)

I tried it on a Novell 3.11 network, but I couldn't reproduce any problems. USE
and UNUSE modify the current environment, so if you were to invoke another
version of command.com, the changes would only effect the most current version.

#: 9583 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  08:32:39
Sb: #DOS does not load high
Fm: Tim Lucas 74630,606
To: Sysop (X)

Hardware: Northgate 80486/25 8Meg AMI BIOS

Problem:  Cannot get DOS=HIGH to work.  MEM/C shows nothing laded high.
** Config.sys **
DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DOS=HIGH,UMB
****  END CONFIG  ****
I couldn't make the config.sys any simpler than that.
When I use QEMM 5.11 everything loads high just as it should.  Why won't DOS
load high (and for that matter, anything else) in it's native mode?

I can be reached at [phone] 8a-5p Pacific time

Thanx.

There are 5 Replies.

#: 9617 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  11:03:27
Sb: #9583-#DOS does not load high
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Tim Lucas 74630,606

Tim,

You must have some kind of EMM manager installed in order to access the HMA.
You can use QEMM, or EMM386, or others, but you have to load 1.

David


There are 3 Replies.

#: 9800 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:14:12
Sb: #9617-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Chas. R. May 71601,2255
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

I'm having a problem loading Rodent v 8.0 high.  I have a 286 w/ 1 meg extended
RAM, or so it says...  OK, what's an EMM manager and where can I get one?
Speak V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y please.  I know this is pretty elementary stuff, but
please humor a novice a little bit.

Thanks.

Chas. ;->



There are 2 Replies.

#: 9883 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  23:48:57
Sb: #9800-#DOS does not load high
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Chas. R. May 71601,2255 (X)

Chas.

The DOS 5 distribution diskettes include a program called EMM386.EXE.  This is
one such Extended Memory Manager.  You can also use QEMM from QuarterDeck, or
386MAX (from, who knows?).   You will have to place the following statement in
your CONFIG.SYS if you are going to use EMM386.

DEVICE=your path\HIMEM.SYS DOS=HIGH,UMB DEVICE=your path\EMM386.EXE auto noems
DEVICEHIGH=your path\RODENT DRIVER NAME

You can count on doing some tweaking of the above, but that would be a start.

David




There is 1 Reply.

#: 9970 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:03:26
Sb: #9883-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Chas. R. May 71601,2255
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

David,

Thanks for the reply.  Question:  Does EMM386.EXE require a 386 or 386SX
machine? Or will it run on a 286, as well?

Chas.



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10063 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  15:52:25
Sb: #9970-DOS does not load high
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Chas. R. May 71601,2255 (X)

Yes Chas, it does require an 80386.  Not sure what the methods are on the 286.
The DOS=high command appears to work with an 80286 (according to the manual).
Someone else will have to chime in here that knows the 286 better. I'm spoiled!
:-)

David




#: 10182 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  08:16:19
Sb: #9970-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Chas. R. May 71601,2255 (X)

Your 80286 may or may not have memory installed between 640K and 1 Meg.  If
there is memory in this address space, you can use it.  However, DOS 5 does NOT
give you this capability.  EMM386 requires a 386 or 486.

One product that could use UMB memory in an 80286 computer is QRAM from
Quarterdeck.  QRAM would substitute for HIMEM.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10320 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  12:57:39
Sb: #10182-DOS does not load high
Fm: Chas. R. May 71601,2255
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill,

Thanks for the info.

Chas.



#: 10541 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:57:35
Sb: #9800-DOS does not load high
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Chas. R. May 71601,2255 (X)

Chas.

You will need to have the minimum below to load dos high, using dos commands in
your config.sys:

device=c:\dos\himem.sys dos=high,umb device=c:\dos\emm386.exe ram

If you load your mouse in config.sys with a "device=" statement, then replace
it with "DEVICEHIGH=" instead.  If you are doing it through the autoexec.bat
file place "LH" in of the line that it is on.  Please let us know what
happens.....


Devlin Spearman Microsoft



#: 9979 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:40:25
Sb: #9617-DOS does not load high
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

David --

I believe your message to Tim Lucas was incorrect.  One does NOT have to load
EMM386.EXE in order to load DOS 5 into HMA.  The requirements for loading DOS 5
into HMA are:

1. An 80286, 80386, or 80486 microprocessor.

2. More than 1 Meg of memory (because HMA lies above 1 Meg).

3. DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS in CONFIG.SYS.

4. DOS=HIGH in CONFIG.SYS.




#: 10042 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  13:41:00
Sb: #9617-DOS does not load high
Fm: George Figge 76656,1563
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

You don't need Emm386 to access HMA, David, although you do need it or some
other UMB provider to load TSR's and Drivers into the upper memory blocks
between 640K and 1024K.



#: 9693 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  14:14:15
Sb: #9583-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Tim Lucas 74630,606

Tim:  You can not use the UMB parameter on the DOS statement unless you also
install a UMB provider.  You will have to include:

 DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE RAM NOEMS

between those two CONFIG.SYS lines, or replace HIMEM.SYS with QEMM (in which
case you will also have to remove the UMB specification).



There are 2 Replies.

#: 9736 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  16:19:49
Sb: #9693-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

Legare:

Why are you recommending RAM NOEMS on the EMM386 line?  Using RAM without a
numerical parameter is sort of a waste of both memory and UMBs, as it creates a
default of 256K of expanded memory.  If all that is desired is UMBs for Device-
and Load- High's, then the NOEMS parameter is sufficient.  RAM should be used
in conjunction with a numerical parameter for the amount of expanded memory
that is desired.  It wastes UMBs for the page frame to have RAM up there with
no parameter for it's size.

:RWA


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10036 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  13:23:15
Sb: #9736-DOS does not load high
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412 (X)

Robert:  I use QEMM not EMM386, so I am not a familiar with the parameters as I
could be.  Recommended those because I thought I remembered seeing that
combination recommended in several other messsages around here.  Thanks for the
clarification.

 - Legare




#: 9981 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:40:46
Sb: #9693-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

Legare --

If Tim specifies RAM following the DEVICE=EMM386.EXE, EMM386 will be instructed
to provide access to BOTH expanded memory and upper memory.  If he then ALSO
specifies NOEMS, EMM386 will be instructed to provide access to upper memory
but to BLOCK access to expanded memory.  RAM and NOEMS are alternatives and are
not mutually compatible.  Based on how much trouble people are having who send
messages to this forum, it seems as if RAM is generally a safer alternative.

More to the point, Tim does not need to install EMM386.EXE in order to put DOS
5 into HMA.  HIMEM alone is sufficient support for DOS=HIGH.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10037 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  13:23:23
Sb: #9981-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill:  I use QEMM ont EMM386, so wasn't as familiar with the parameters as I
should have been.  Thanks for the clarification.

And, no he doesn't have to load EMM386 to load DOS high, but he does have to
load it to use the UMB specification (DOS=HIGH,UMB) which he was using.

 - Legare




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10147 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  05:17:43
Sb: #10037-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

I don't know what DOS does about a DOS=HIGH,UMB when there is no EMM386.EXE.
DOS may just ignore the UMB, or it may setup a table of links that is never
used.  I suspect the latter.  If so, the only disadvantage may be a somewhat
larger DOS.



There are 3 Replies.

#: 10343 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  14:59:57
Sb: #10147-DOS does not load high
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill:  I haven't tried it since one of the earily beta versions, but then it
completely ignored the DOS=... statement.  In other words, it didn't load DOS
high either.

 - Legare




#: 10563 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:00:26
Sb: #10147-DOS does not load high
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

That is correct, DOS claims all free umb's for its usage.  If there is no
emm386 to cal for them, they never get allocated.....




Dev



#: 10899 S2/Setup & Install
    07-Jul-91  13:04:39
Sb: #10147-#DOS does not load high
Fm: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill:

If the UMB area is not "initialized", then DOS=HIGH,UMB just becomes DOS=HIGH,
just as DEVICEHIGH= becomes DEVICE=.  The size of DOS will not change.

:RWA


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10910 S2/Setup & Install
    07-Jul-91  13:39:33
Sb: #10899-DOS does not load high
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412 (X)

Thanks.




#: 9980 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:40:34
Sb: #9583-DOS does not load high
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Tim Lucas 74630,606

Tim --

The MEM command will not show DOS loaded high in the memory map, although MEM
/C should generate the line "MS-DOS resident in High Memory Area".  You can
also tell that DOS is in HMA by the size of the residual DOS file in
conventional memory.  If MEM /C says conventional memory includes something
like "MSDOS 13904" this indicates that DOS is in HMA, because the whole of DOS
takes more than 13904.

Have you run MEM /C when CONFIG.SYS does NOT say DOS=HIGH, so you have a
comparison?

(You do NOT have to load EMM386.EXE in order to put DOS into HMA.  The
CONFIG.SYS you have used ought to do the trick, although the UMB following
DOS=HIGH makes no sense.)





#: 10043 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  13:41:08
Sb: #9583-DOS does not load high
Fm: George Figge 76656,1563
To: Tim Lucas 74630,606

Tim, are you sure DOS isn't loading into HMA?  That wouldn't show up on MEM /c,
which just shows the UMB's between 640K and 1024K, not the HMA just above
1024K.  As to loading anything in those UMB's, for that you would need to load
a UMB provider such as EMM386 or Qemm386.

George



#: 10531 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:56:05
Sb: #9583-DOS does not load high
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Tim Lucas 74630,606

Dave's comments are correct and I should also add is the a20 handler working?
Make sure when you bbot up that in the blurb about the XMS that you see
something saying that the High Memory Area is available.  If you do not then
you must use a different a20 handler.  The syntax would look like this:

device=c:\dos\himem.sys /m:x[where x is a whole number from 1-16]

Read page 611 for more details in your user manual.....

Dev



#: 9584 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  08:36:36
Sb: #Memory allocation Error
Fm: J. Eagle Shenk 70272,3012
To: J. Eagle Shenk 70272,3012 (X)

I run a WWIVnet board and when I try to drop to DOS, I get a memory allocation
error. My Config looks like this. DEVICE=C:\DOS\SERVER.EXE FILES=20 BUFFERS=20
DEVICE=C:\DOS|pcfdrv.SYS /D:2 /T:80 /S:9 /H:2 /F:2 DEVICE=C:\DOS\ANSI.SYS
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\  /p

The system I am using is an Epson EQUITY II with 640 main, and no extended. Is
there any way to avoid this? The program iws WWIV 412

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10538 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:57:08
Sb: #9584-#Memory allocation Error
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: J. Eagle Shenk 70272,3012 (X)

What memory allocation error? Is it coming from DOS or from this other program?
Do you get it all the time or under only certain circumstances? If only
occasionally, then under which circumstances?



Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10650 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  09:45:26
Sb: #10538-Memory allocation Error
Fm: J. Eagle Shenk 70272,3012
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

When I try to drop to dos from WWIV, I get something that said Memory
Allocation Error, Unable to use Command, Returning... There is no High memory,
so I wonder if that might be the problem.

#: 9585 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  08:40:19
Sb: SMARTDrive Problem
Fm: Scott Evernden 73116,3451
To: Lance Benson 72460,3310 (X)

I was using /P on my SMARTDRV line, and it does cause SmartDrive to load and I
didn't appear to notice any problems with it.  Problem is, last week I tried a
disk benchmark and discovered that SmartDrive wasn't doing anything (except
consuming memory).  So, in my case (w/ UNIX partitions which SD hates), /P is a
waste of time and ram...

-scott

#: 9586 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  08:40:55
Sb: 5.0 AND WIN 3.0
Fm: RALPH W. RASER [PDX] 70633,12
To: David Krause 76077,3071 (X)

David,

I didn't have the video or other shadowing on.  I enabled it after reading your
message but there is no difference with Windows.  The computer seems to run
faster with the shadowing on.  I had been running Win/e with dos 3.3 and 4.01.
It will work in the /r mode but not /e.  Not much point of using windows
without the enhanced mode although I have learned to play solitaire in the real
mode. :-)

Thanks for the concern,

Ralph



#: 9588 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  08:42:06
Sb: sytos tape backup
Fm: Scott Evernden 73116,3451
To: ray kirk 72537,3145

for grins, did you try using SETVER to fool the sytron code?  What version of
Sytos (Sytos Plus?) are you using?

-scott

#: 10346 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:05:18
Sb: sytos tape backup
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: ray kirk 72537,3145

Ray,

What problem, exactly, are you having when you attempt to use Sytos? If taking
out Himem.sys and Emm386.exe lets it work, then you could: 1. Try the different
machine switches with Himem.sys. See page 611 of your User's Guide. 2. Exclude
suspect ranges with EMM386 to determine whether or not you are having an Upper
Memory conflict. See page 607.

If neither of these work, and you would like any further help or suggestions
please mail me or call MS-Technical Support at [phone].

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9589 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  08:51:52
Sb: Memory problems
Fm: Tom Coates 73137,266
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

I learned from experience about the bootable floppy!

sounds like good suggestions. i can probably use Manifest (QDs memory viewer)
to pick candidate areas for includ\sion.

thanks

#: 9590 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  09:10:34
Sb: HP Vectra with 5.0
Fm: Larry Solum 76340,1131
To: David Martin 76702,1152 (X)

David,
       Thanks for the info.  I took out the DOS HIGH statement, and Win now
loads enchanced mode.  I think I simply need more memory to run Windows in
enhanced mode with DOS loaded high.
                                                Larry Solum

#: 9712 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:25:31
Sb: #HP Vectra with 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Larry Solum 76340,1131 (X)

Larry,

If you are loading devices and tsrs and DOS high they will all be eating up
extended memory. You may still be able to force Windows into Enhanced mode by
typing WIN/3.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11070 S3/Hardware Issues
    08-Jul-91  10:25:46
Sb: #9712-HP Vectra with 5.0
Fm: Larry Solum 76340,1131
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate,
      Just not enough memoray, I think.  Taking out DOS HIGH leaves enough.
                             Larry P.S. oops, thats memory.  Memo Ray is a
device used by managers in corporate bureaucracies, as in, "He was getting
uppity, so I zapped him with the Memo Ray."

#: 9591 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  09:15:54
Sb: #REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Gary J. Ellis 76702,350 (X)

Gary,

Thanks for your help.  I have had some success!  REM no longer hangs the
computer, and I have been able to load SETVER high.  The other devices will
not load high, and I suspect it is more of a SIZE= problem, or a just plain
no go.  The following is my working CONFIG.SYS.  I had to add the I=
statement to get it to work.  I now have over 135K available in HMA.


DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\HIMEM.SYS
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOEMS AUTO D=128 M9 i=e000-efff
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\ASPI4DOS.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\X00.SYS E 2 B,0,9600 B,1,19200 FIFO=15
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\XANSI.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\MSCMOUSE.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\SMARTDRV.SYS 2048 512
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /E:1024 /p
BUFFERS=10
FILES=60
BREAK=ON
LASTDRIVE=E



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10169 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  07:48:37
Sb: #9591-#REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Gary J. Ellis 76702,350
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

David -- Have you tried switching the order of your DEVICEHIGH statements?
Sometimes that helps.

For testing purposes, why don't you see if you can get two or three innocuous
drivers to load high:  ANSI.SYS, DOSKEY, and MOUSE.  As far as I know, these
drivers do not "expand" when they load, which can often cause problems.

Gary

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10212 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  10:13:52
Sb: #10169-#REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Gary J. Ellis 76702,350 (X)

Gary,

I guess you did not see my previous message stating that I have solved the
problem of loading high.  It was order.  ALL DEVICE= statements must appear
before any of the DEVICEHIGH=.  Picking one in the middle of the pack hangs the
machine no matter how small, purpose, etc..  Seems like a "File Format" section
in the DOS manual is in order.

Now I am trying a new tack.  I picked up QEMM and loaded it, getting rid of
HIMEM.SYS, and EMM386.  QEMM is now coming with Manifest which is an
indispensible tool when trying to play these memory games.  I know have 613K of
RAM available in CMA.  However, I am spending my time over on Quarterdeck's
Forum trying to get Windows to run now!  Ain't this great!

This thing better be able to replace my girlfriend when I get done!  :-)

David



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10417 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  18:37:45
Sb: #10212-REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Gary J. Ellis 76702,350
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

I would imagine this twiddling will require roughly the same level of
investment (money, time, tears) as a mate.

Incidentally, I'm sure you will QEMM is a far more capable memory memory than
DOS ...

#: 10560 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:00:05
Sb: #10169-REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Gary J. Ellis 76702,350 (X)

Actually the mouse one does starts out the size of the executable and shirnks
down to the size of 15k or so....


Dev



#: 10520 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:54:35
Sb: #9591-#REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

First you have some non-dos stuff in there.  load setver first before himem and
do not load it high.  Second feel free to use the devicehigh= instead device=
if you want to load items into the upper memory(exceptions: do not try to load
himem or emm386 high).  Let us know what happens......



Dev



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10732 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  18:40:14
Sb: #10520-REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Dev

I thought I had replied to you a few days ago.  Oh well...

I discovered that the order of DEVICE= and DEVICEHIGH= was critical for my
configuration.  I was originally trying to LH the simpler drivers that
happenned to be the next to last DEVICE= statement.  By first loading all
LOW drivers, followed by the HIGH drivers, I was able to successfully load
high.  The following is my current working CONFIG.SYS.  I am still tweaking.
Feel free to critique.


DEVICE=C:\DOS\DEV\HIMEM.SYS
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE d=128 m9 auto noems
DEVICE=C:\DOS\DEV\ASPI4DOS.SYS /w
DEVICE=C:\DOS\DEV\SMARTDRV.SYS 2048 1024 /B-
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\DEV\X00.SYS E B,1,19200 FIFO=15 R=2048 T=2048
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\DEV\XANSI.SYS
DEVICEHIGH SIZE=3460 C:\DOS\DEV\MSCMOUSE.SYS
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /E:512 /P
BUFFERS=10
FILES=60
BREAK=ON
LASTDRIVE=E



#: 10733 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  18:40:17
Sb: #10520-REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

And hear is my working QEMM CONFIG.SYS.  Have not figured out any good
benches for these 2 configs.


DEVICE=C:\DOS\QEMM\QEMM386.SYS MA=4 RAM X=B000-B7FF X=F000-FFFF NRH NS NOSH AROM=C000-C7FF AROM=C800-CBFF
DEVICE=C:\DOS\DEV\ASPI4DOS.SYS /w
REM DEVICE=C:\DOS\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:1 C:\DOS\DEV\HYPER386.EXE C:2048:2048 KW:- XT:+ S T:2 V
DEVICE=C:\DOS\DEV\SMARTDRV.SYS 2048 1024 /B+
DEVICE=C:\DOS\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:1 C:\DOS\DEV\X00.SYS E B,1,19200 FIFO=15 R=2048 T=2048
DEVICE=C:\DOS\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:1 C:\DOS\DEV\XANSI.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:1 C:\DOS\DEV\MSCMOUSE.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:1 C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
DOS=HIGH
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /E:512 /P
BUFFERS=10
FILES=10
BREAK=ON
LASTDRIVE=G



#: 9672 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  12:56:32
Sb: #REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Dev

Can you tell me more about the proper syntax for multiple exclusion
statements in EMM386 command line?  As I have indicated in other postings, I
have had some success by getting SETVER to load high from the CONFIG.SYS.
This was due to the i= statement in the command line.  However, no other
devices will load high even using a large SIZE= setting.  The system simply
hangs.  After adding the first x=A000-DFFF the system will reboot
constantly.  I then tried adding the second x=F000-FFFF and get a "User
defined areas overlap" and then a reboot.  The following is my current
CONFIG.SYS


DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\HIMEM.SYS /a20control:on
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE x=a000-dfff i=e000-efff x=f000-fffe d=128 m9 auto noems
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\ASPI4DOS.SYS /v
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\X00.SYS E B,1,19200 FIFO=15 R=1024 T=1024
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\XANSI.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\MSCMOUSE.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\SMARTDRV.SYS 2048 512
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /E:1024 /p
BUFFERS=10
FILES=60
BREAK=ON
LASTDRIVE=E



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10521 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:54:44
Sb: #9672-REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

First of all to load stuff high use devicehigh= instead of device= for your
driver statements.  Also make sure that if you have any expansion cards that
they are not using parts of your upper memory(network cards, some controllers,
etc.).  Try this as your emm386 line:


device=emm386.exe x=a000-d000 i=e000-efff noems

If you want EMS then replace "noems" with "ram" and put m9 right in front of
it.

Comment: You're excluding too much and not leaving yourself any room up there.
Try my suggested emm386 line and expand the x= statement by 100h at a time.....

Dev



#: 10255 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  11:44:11
Sb: REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

Anytime David.  I would start with x=c800=d000....

Dev



#: 10448 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  21:01:10
Sb: REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Ronald Bobo 76474,1647
To: Bill  Burke 71611,1445 (X)

Hello, Bill
     Some of these EMM386 hangups are caused by Adaptec disk controllers.
There is a file in one of the IBM forums called SNUTIL.ZIP.  It contains a
small file named MOVEHDD.SYS.  That will fix the problem (at it did for me).
     Ron

#: 10503 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:52:24
Sb: REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Bill  Burke 71611,1445 (X)

Not at all.  I for one appreciate you pointing out a nice utility for the rest
of the folks here......

Dev



#: 10504 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:52:29
Sb: REM DEVICE hangs EMM386!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Gary J. Ellis 76702,350 (X)

I believe you will find that from a MS person(i.e. the technical writers in the
section for emm386 on pp 605-609 of your user manual)....

Dev



#: 9592 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  09:47:25
Sb: #Loading Mouse High
Fm: Thomas Berrang 76607,433
To: Steve Levy 71370,255 (X)

Steve

I'm afraid that I'm not an expert on this. But I try to explain to you what I
know. Also, I'm using a very flexible Product (386MAX or Bluemax from Qualitas)
to help me manage my memory.

If you have DOS=HIGH in your CONFIG.SYS, DOS will go into the HMA (=High Memory
Area) which is a specific 64 K memory area starting at 1024 K. If you load
TSR's, drivers and others high, it's going into the UMB (Upper Memory Blocks),
which is an address range between 640 and 1024 KB. I think it's not really
'physical' memory. This memory address area is used by ROM, your video card,
network adapters, etc. Those typically don't use all of that and leave 'holes'
that you can fill. How much space is there, of course depends on your machine.
In case it's a PS/2 there is one solution of compressing the BIOS area (with
Bluemax) and make more space available.

In order to fill the holes you need a memory manager. These will 'remap'
extended memory (above 1024 K) to be accessable through the address range 640
-1024 K. In DOS 5 you can put DOS=HIGH,UMB in your config.sys and using the MS
memory manager, which I think is EMM386 or EMM286. As far as I read on CIS,
this is not a very flexible combo if you don't have enough space. Much better
are programs like QEMM from Quartedeck, 386MAX and Bluemax from Qualitas. They
also provide 'optimize' or 'maximize' features to assist you in 'highloading'.


[More]

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9593 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  09:47:38
Sb: #9592-#Loading Mouse High
Fm: Thomas Berrang 76607,433
To: Thomas Berrang 76607,433 (X)

[Continued]

I feel that DOS 5 is really a major improvement and together with a good memory
manager you'll get a lot out of your machine. I recommend you 'listen' into
their foras here on CIS. Qualitas is on PCVENA, section 8. I don't know where
Quarterdeck is, but there shouldn't be a problem finding that out.

BTW I'm not working in the computer business, just a heavy user at work and at
home and still learning all this confusing terminology.

Take care and good luck

Thomas





There are 2 Replies.

#: 10525 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:55:11
Sb: #9593-Loading Mouse High
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Thomas Berrang 76607,433 (X)

Quarterdeck is on PCVENB, Section 1

From the ever-helpful folks here at MS





#: 10526 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:55:17
Sb: #9593-Loading Mouse High
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Thomas Berrang 76607,433 (X)

Quarterdeck is in the PC Vendor B forum, section 1(go pcvenb)

Dev



#: 9684 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:14:04
Sb: Loading Mouse High
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Lee M. Wetzler 70471,2300 (X)

In order for the mouse driver to be loaded high, you need at least the amount
of space free as the size of the mouse.exe file.  Once it finishes configuring
itself, it shrinks down to the amount of space that it will take during dos
operation, trry loading it first in the autoexec.bat or device=mouse.sys
statement in the config.sys file.....


Dev the Dedicated



#: 10054 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  14:30:35
Sb: #Loading Mouse High
Fm: Jay Roberts 72571,647
To: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704 (X)

Roger, I've tried the solution on page 329 and still can't get my mouse driver
to load high. Exactly what did you do to get yours up there?

Any help would be appreciated - I'm stuck.

Thanks - Jay




There are 3 Replies.

#: 10330 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  13:46:09
Sb: #10054-#Loading Mouse High
Fm: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704
To: Jay Roberts 72571,647 (X)

Jay, I am assuming you are using HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.exe, not QEMM or some
other 3rd party memory manager.

The first thing I did was to determine the size of MOUSE.SYS (in hex) by
loading it in conventional memory and running MEM /C. It reported the size as
3A80. I then setup my config.sys file as follows: device=c:\dos\SETVER.exe
device=c:\dos\HIMEM.SYS DOS=HIGH,UMB device=c:\dos\EMM386.EXE ram frame=e000
devicehigh size=3a80 d:\mouse\mouse.sys

I am doing this from memory (mine, not the computer's) since I used this
configuration on my Northgate at work, so I hope I did not goof. I relocated
the page frame to E000 so as to get a larger contiguous UMB. The SETVER command
is optional (unless your mouse driver requires an earlier version of DOS. The
RAM parameter establishes 512k of expanded memory - if you want all extended
memory, use NOEMS in place of RAM, but you need one or the other in order to
load anything into the UMBs. If this doesn't work, and noone else responds, CIS
me back and I will double check the CONFIG.SYS at work Monday. Incidentally, I
tried to configure a Swan PC this way unsuccessfully, and still haven't sorted
it out, so nothing is guaranteed with DOS5.

Incidentally, doing nothing but putting the page frame @ E000 MAY work by
itself to solve your problem, since the UMB shud be larger.





There is 1 Reply.

#: 10904 S2/Setup & Install
    07-Jul-91  13:28:19
Sb: #10330-Loading Mouse High
Fm: Jay Roberts 72571,647
To: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704 (X)

Thanks for your responses.  Finally got the sucker up there by putting it first
in my devicehigh group before ramdrive and smartdrv.  Didn't need the size
option, btw.

Thanks again - Jay




#: 10339 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  14:18:58
Sb: #10054-Loading Mouse High
Fm: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704
To: Jay Roberts 72571,647 (X)

Jay, further to my previous msg, I should have pointed out that page 325 of the
DOS manual deals specifically with the mouse driver problem. In the example
there the size of the mouse driver is 39E0, and yoy can see where that came
from by looking at the listing at the bottom of page 320. You will, of course
have to determine the size of your mouse driver.

Incidentally, my response dealt with MOUSE SYS. You can loadhigh MOUSE.COM from
your autoexec.bat, but there is no way to provide a size parameter. Again,
however, doing nothing else but putting the page frame at E000 may let you load
MOUSE.SYS or MOUSE.COM without worrying about size. That is, if your PC does
not eperience any conflicts with the page frame at E000. I have always had my
pageframe there, but apparently some PCs have something else there.



#: 10561 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:00:13
Sb: #10054-Loading Mouse High
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Jay Roberts 72571,647 (X)

Remember that the mouse needs the amount of memory of its executable file size
to start up there.  It then shrinks down to its resident size.....




Dev



#: 9594 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  09:50:53
Sb: #keyboard problems
Fm: Len Goodwin 71331,2106
To: Bob Boyer/OrSt Univ 74020,1522 (X)

I have been having similar problems, but with Right Alt, Right Ctrl and Right
shift. The keys will sometimes "stick" affecting all subsequent keypresses
Pressing the left Alt, Ctrl, Shift, as appropriate usually clears the problem,
but not always.  I see that WPCorp. has modified WP 5.1 to resolve a similar
problem, but I don't know if it's related to DOS 5.0



There are 3 Replies.

#: 9619 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  11:09:47
Sb: #9594-keyboard problems
Fm: Paul Hagan 73710,3155
To: Len Goodwin 71331,2106

having same problem. In addition it causes the machine to operate more slowly.
The popular opinion is that it's related to the A-20 handler and memory
manager. It locks up a 286 but runs fine on a 386 without the Intel Above Board
found on the 286. Only cure was to go back to dos 3.3. Think that I'll try Dr
DOS

                                        Paul

#: 10291 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  11:48:03
Sb: #9594-keyboard problems
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Len Goodwin 71331,2106

Len,

Have you tried all the Himem switches and SWITCHES=/K in your config.sys file?
Do you get this problem when you aren't loading Himem.sys?

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 10721 S3/Hardware Issues
    06-Jul-91  17:17:35
Sb: #9594-keyboard problems
Fm: Jerry Johnson 75160,2530
To: Len Goodwin 71331,2106

Len,

I tried everything to no avail regarding the keyboard problems.  One "new"
suggestion here was to install the KEYB program in config.sys.  That did the
trick for me (nothing else helped).

Try INSTALL=C:\DOS\KEYB.COM US,,C:\DOS\KEYBOARD.SYS in your config.

#: 9713 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:25:39
Sb: #keyboard problems
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Bob Boyer/OrSt Univ 74020,1522 (X)

Bob,

There are a few things you might want to try as well as removing things from
your autoexec.bat and config.sys to determine exactly what's causing this
problem. Try using SWITCHES=/K in your config.sys file (plus /K on the ANSI.SYS
line if you have it.) Try installed KEYB.COM. And finally, you can download
FIXSHIFT.COM from compuserve or order it from MS-Technical support.

Oh, you could also try the different Himem.sys switches for different machines.
Even if Himem installs successfully, the particular method by which it accesses
the A20 line may vary. Another switch may improve things.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9732 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  16:15:49
Sb: #9713-keyboard problems
Fm: Bob Boyer/OrSt Univ 74020,1522
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Downloaded fixshift.com, which appears to do the trick on my ZEOS/AMI.  However
my ALR/Phoenix at work has a slightly different problem...which I have seen
described elsewhere in the forum.  F7 tries to print in WP51...hence difficulty
exiting.  Fixshift in this application causes cursor pad to behave more
erratically than the ZEOS at home.  This is corrected by toggling numlock off.
So I will try running fixshift and numlkoff on entering WP51.  Interestingly
both machines execute WP51 perfectly from Windows...Incidentally I did try
various himem switches, switches=/k (or whatever the syntax)..have not tried
keyb.sys.  I think you guys need to recognize this is a bug...a forgivable sin
in a major upgrade.  The problems are trivial compared to the enhancements DOS
5.0 offers.

Thanks for the response...keep me posted.

Bob

#: 10040 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  13:25:41
Sb: keyboard problems
Fm: William Cuthbertson 72760,314
To: Bob Boyer/OrSt Univ 74020,1522

I have the same machine and I have had the same problem. I tried installing the
keyboard.com and the problems seems to have disappeared. Lets keep in touch,
let me know what you find out and I will do the same. I called Zeos and they
are supposed to get back to me.

#: 9595 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  09:52:33
Sb: #DOS 5.0 and QUATTRO 2.0
Fm: Boeing Commercial Air 70473,377
To: Albert Fiok

Albert,
I tried using the LOADFIX command to invoke Quattro Pro.   Unfortunately this
did not solve the problem.  Even going to the DOS shell from Quattro Pro will
also cause the system to freeze.  The keybosrd does not lock up.  Are there any
other suggestions or possible sources of information ?  Thanks you for your
earlier,  prompt response.
                         Michael Johnson

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9861 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  20:55:07
Sb: #9595-#DOS 5.0 and QUATTRO 2.0
Fm: Albert Fiok 72437,544
To: Boeing Commercial Air 70473,377 (X)

Micheal,

I have Quattro Pro version 2.0, and MSDOS 5.0 running on a 386.  I do not run a
network.  My configuration is about as plain as you can get with only DOS
loaded high.  I use himem.sys, setver.exe, smartdrv.sys with 2048 cache and a
SCSI driver.  I don't use any other cache or memory manager.  CHKDSK reports
about 565 KB free.

With this setup I can run run QPRO 2.0 with no problems in any of the following
ways:  1) using a batch file to reset the path to include my QPRO directory and
call QPRO,  2) not including the QPRO directory in the path and calling QPRO
with a drive/path prefix,  3) calling QPRO from the DOS shell,  4) running from
Windows 3.0 using a PIF file.  Each way I had no problems.

Bottom line, I was unable to get my system to hang with QPRO using this
configuration.  I didn't need loadfix either.  Sorry, but I don't have any more
ideas.

Al

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10173 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  08:12:15
Sb: #9861-DOS 5.0 and QUATTRO 2.0
Fm: Boeing Commercial Air 70473,377
To: Albert Fiok 72437,544 (X)

Al,
Thanks for the info.  Running on a standalone PC I have no problems.
If I find an answer I'll let you know.

                            MIKE


#: 9596 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  10:03:03
Sb: #DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Douglass Laing 72067,1376
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157

Problems with MS DOS V5.00 and COMMAND.COM & Novell Netware V3.11 & 2.2

1st problem seen was with an ARCNET lan card and boot rom.

    - create a boot floppy with MS DOS V5.0 on it.
    - put the network shells on (ipx & NET5 or NETX)
    - test it in a unit with a floppy to make sure it works.
    - DOSGEN it, and rplfix.

    Diskless work station will boot DOS, then run ipx, net5, and allow
    you to login to the network. When LOGIN.EXE exits you get a message
    as follows:

        Invalid COMMAND.COM
        Cannot load COMMAND, system halted.

    We tried several different Arcnet lan cards, boot roms, and settings (INT,
    I/O and RAM). All gave the same response except the Novell RX-NET boot
    rom (Remote reset V2.1, PN#817-234-020 REV A), it hung after loading
    IPX and NET5. We also downloaded the latest IPX and NETX files from
    Netwire, they gave the same results.

    We tested an NE2000 lan card with boot rom, it worked just fine??? Or
    at least we thought it did.

<PART 1 OF 3>

There are 2 Replies.

#: 9597 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  10:04:24
Sb: #9596-#DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Douglass Laing 72067,1376
To: Douglass Laing 72067,1376 (X)

2nd problem MS DOS V5.00 again, LOGIN.EXE V3.58, and NO EXTRA ENVIRONMENT.

    - If login.exe tries to set more environment than there is space for,
      you will get the same Invalid COMMAND.COM system halted message as
      above.

    - If you give the system more environment (shell=command.com /e:800/p)
      the problems seems to go away.

    - If you change the LOGIN.EXE to V3.08 the problem also seems to go
      away.


3rd problem MS DOS V5.00 again, and some programs.

    - Upon exiting some programs you will get the same Invalid COMMAND.COM
      system halted message.

<PART 2 OF 3>

There are 2 Replies.

#: 9598 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  10:05:45
Sb: #9597-#DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Douglass Laing 72067,1376
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202

All three problems have been seen on four different customers networks and on
our own in house network. In the case of the customers we have moved them back
to MS DOS 3.3a.

Common to all 5 networks:

    Only two copies of COMMAND.COM on the network as follows.

        SYS:\PUBLIC\IBM\MSDOS\V3.30\COMMAND.COM  (25,308kb 02-02-88 12:00am)
        SYS:\PUBLIC\IBM\MSDOS\V5.00\COMMAND.COM  (47,845kb 04-09-91  5:00am)

        the second V5.00 command.com is the same size and date as the boot
        immage or floppy/hard drive.

        the S2: search drive is set to the above path as follows

        MAP ROOT S2:=SYS:\PUBLIC\%SMACHINE\%OS\%OS_VERSION
        COMSPEC = S2:COMMAND.COM

        when you type SET at the dos prompt the COMSPEC=Y:COMMAND.COM

        If you type COMMAND from any ware on the network, it loads a
        copy of command.com with the proper message. You can then type
        EXIT without any errors.

        In the 3rd problem listed above if you first type COMMAND in the
        same directory as the file that gives the error on exit, command
        will load another copy without any error.



If you find any answer to the problem please leave me a message here or call or
fax me at the following address:

    Laing Electronics Inc.
    Douglass Laing
    12841 Western Ave, Unit E
    Garden Grove, CA 92641
    [phone], FAX [phone]

<PART 3 OF 3>

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9733 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  16:16:04
Sb: #9598-#DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412
To: Douglass Laing 72067,1376 (X)

Douglass:

The DOS 5 setup program will insert a line in CONFIG.SYS similar to:

        SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\

If the /E:nnnn and /P parameters existed before the upgrade, they will remain
unchanged.  An environment increase is a good idea on a network,  and if you
are running Windows, increase it to 1024 bytes.

The second C:\DOS\ in the SHELL= line is a pointer to COMSPEC,  without having
it in the AUTOEXEC.BAT file, or elsewhere.  If that
parameter exists on your SHELL= line, and the path it points to is
invalid, then you will get these messages.

It is okay to remove that pointer, and set COMSPEC in your normal method
elsewhere.

:RWA


There is 1 Reply.

#: 9772 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  18:16:41
Sb: #9733-DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Douglass Laing 72067,1376
To: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412 (X)

I removed that statment first thing. The only comspec statment is in the Novell
login script (COMSPEC = S2:COMMAND.COM) S2: is the search drive for MSDOS 5.00.
We have the enviroment set at 800 bytes, we removed that statment to see what
would happen. It made it crash every time with default enviorment.

#: 10534 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  01:56:30
Sb: #9597-#DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Douglass Laing 72067,1376 (X)

It seems that your lack of a compsec variable is getting you down.  Try:

shell=[drivename]:\[directory location]\command.com [drivename]:\[directory
location of command.com] /e:xxx(where xxx=a number betwee 160 and 32768) /p

This will probably solve most of your problems.  Without that second parameter,
the resident portion of command.com will not know where to look for the
transient protion that routinely gets overwritten in the program area of
conventional memory.  It is a mandatory parameter if command.com is not in the
root directory.  It is used to set the COMSPEC variable.  Hope this helps you a
bit....


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10761 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  21:27:28
Sb: #10534-#DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Douglass Laing 72067,1376
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

We normally use 800 bytes of enviroment space, Novell and Microsoft sujested
that we take the SHELL= command out of the CONFIG.SYS file to test and see if
the problem went away. It seems that Microsoft has known about this problem for
some time now. Read the article (MS-DOS 5.0 Neglects Netware, in July 8, 91 LAN
TIMES)

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10767 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  22:01:04
Sb: #10761-DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Douglass Laing 72067,1376
To: Douglass Laing 72067,1376 (X)

It seems that Novell has removed the DOSUP2.ZIP file from the NDD download area
that is for MS DOS 5.0 support...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------[76702,414]
DOSUP2.TXT                01-Jul-91 388                Accesses: 145

    Title   : DOSUP2.ZIP NetWare Shell version 3.20
    Keywords: NETX EMSNETX XMSNETX IPX DOS TBMI2 RPLFIX SHELL

    Due to some limitations in the 3.03 IPX involving Token-Ring parameters,
    and some other issues relatd to the 3.20 shell (NETX, XMSNETX, and
    EMSNETX), the file DOSUP2.ZIP will be * TEMPORARILY * removed from the NDD
    area.  Please continue to monitor Novell's forums for the re-upload of
    DOSUP2.ZIP.  For the current version of NetWare shells, download SHL302.ZIP
    and NET5.ZIP. (Novell Upload!)



#: 10533 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  01:56:21
Sb: #9596-DOS5/NOVELL/COMMAND.COM
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Douglass Laing 72067,1376 (X)

Make sure that you exclude the address that the card(s) will attempt to use.


Dev



#: 9599 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  10:19:11
Sb: #Intel Inboard/DOS 5.0
Fm: Robert Woods 71350,1200
To: Steven J. Swanson 72261,1114 (X)

Steve--
       I use QEMM386 (v.5.13) and DV (v.2.34) with my Inboard386/pc piggyed
with 4 megs. and have had no problems to speak of.  But then again, I don't
really like WIN3 (or the earlier incarnations for that matter), probably
because of the work I try to get done on my PC.  I guess what I'd do is to ask
specifically in the PCEO forum and in the PCVENB quarterdeck forum.  I can't
remember if I appended my config.sys and autoexec.bat with the attendant
switches I use on QEMM386, but if you want to try them, I'll be happy to send
them to you.
       Frustrating all this "upgrading" isn't it?  Best, Robert

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10217 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  10:23:54
Sb: #9599-#Intel Inboard/DOS 5.0
Fm: Steven J. Swanson 72261,1114
To: Robert Woods 71350,1200 (X)

Robert - I really would appreciate a look at your config.sys and auotexec.bat.
I might pick up the answer to my problems. I am getting enough positive
responses that qemm386 should work with the Inboard and Win 3.0 that I am
curious as to how to pull it together. And,  yes, upgrading can be a pain - but
I see it as "part of the test" and some what a pleasant diversion form the
"real work". Appreciate your comments and help. Steve

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10696 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  14:36:52
Sb: #10217-#Intel Inboard/DOS 5.0
Fm: Robert Woods 71350,1200
To: Steven J. Swanson 72261,1114 (X)

Steve:
       Here you are... hope it is some help.  The includes were suggested by
manifest, with the exception of C300 and C900, which suggested themselves with
QEMM ANALYSIS MAP.  I want only 15 buffers, and that is the default in DOS5 for
my 72meg disk drive.   I have loaded DOS5 high but excluded 64k additional for
DV (the other 512k is for icache).  From what I understand, Steve, one can run
WIN3 under DV with the latest QEMM and DV releases (5.13 and 2.34)
       Hope this helps; let me know.
       Best,
       Robert

C>type config.sys DEVICE=C:\STARTS\INBRDPC.SYS NOPAUSE NOCACHE
DEVICE=C:\STARTS\QEMM.SYS RAM EXT=576 MA=10 ROM I=F600-FDFF I=0C00-0FFF
      I=C300-C3FF I=C900-C9FF DEVICE=C:\STARTS\LOADHI.SYS /R:2
C:\STARTS\MSCMOUSE.SYS /1/A5/E/I SHELL=C:\STARTS\COMMAND.COM C:\STARTS\ /P
/E:160 Files   = 32 Stacks  = 0,0 DOS=HIGH

C>type autoexec.bat SET
PATH=C:\DOS;C:\BATCH;C:\UTIL;C:\NORTON;C:\WORDS;C:\SYSTAT SET NO87=FALSE
C:\STARTS\LOADHI /R:1 C:\UTIL\ICACHE /S:512 C:\STARTS\LOADHI /R:4
C:\STARTS\APLPRINT dv

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10857 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  09:02:38
Sb: #10696-Intel Inboard/DOS 5.0
Fm: Steven J. Swanson 72261,1114
To: Robert Woods 71350,1200 (X)

Robert - Thanks for the info. I'll check it out and get back to you.  Steve

#: 9600 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  10:19:57
Sb: #Driver problems
Fm: Candace Krongold 75046,3474
To: All

Here are the problems I'm having with my new MS-DOS 5.0/Windows 3.0 setup:

1.   On bootup, I see that SMARTDRV.SYS hasn't loaded; there is a message below
it stating that it has detected an incompatible disk partition.  I don't know
if this happened before, with the Windows version of SMARTDRV.SYS and my old
version of DMDRVR.BIN (I replaced it with the new one supplied with MS-DOS
5.0), since Windows in in my Autoexec.bat file and loaded quickly, before I
could read the screen.  I suspect that it did.

2.   EMM386.exe could not find enough high memory to use and wouldn't load.  I
have 4 mg, and according to "mem" have over 3 mg. available xms, so I don't
understand why emm386 wouldn't work.  I was using the RAM switch, since I run
Windows and don't really need it except to load drivers into high memory.

3.   I have one program, America OnLine, that will not run now.  The computer
simply freezes when I try.  It always terminated Windows before, and now won't
run from the new DOS.  Does anyone have a similar experience with this one?

FYI:  My config.sys file is as follows:

DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DOS=HIGH
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
FILES=30
BUFFERS=20
STACKS=0,0
DEVICE=C:\DMDRVR.BIN
DEVICE=C:\HC2\ATDOSHC2.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.SYS 1024 256
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /p

I use a 40 meg c: drive configured as c: and g: and a Plus HardCard II 80 drive
configured as d:, e:, and f:.  The startup screen says 386-bios, 1987 AMI
(American Megatrends Inc.) for Addonics.

ANY ADVICE WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED!

Thanks

Candace Krongold

There are 2 Replies.

#: 11096 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  13:51:23
Sb: #9600-Driver problems
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Candace Krongold 75046,3474

Candace,

Smartdrive won't load if it detects, just like it says, an incompatible disk
partition like DMDRVR.BIN. You can get around this by using the /P parameter
which will force Smartdrive to load. However, we don't recommend this as this
will put your system/hard drive at risk. Smartdrive expects standard DOS
partitioning schemes and can make mistakes if it tries to do something to your
hard drive that may be interpreted incorrectly by such programs as DMDRVR.BIN.

If you are going to load EMM386 exclusively for loading devices and TSRs high,
then you will want to use the NOEMS switch. (Make sure also that you have UMB
on your DOS line in the Config.sys file: DOS=HIGH,UMB.) If EMM386 is having
trouble finding memory then maybe somethings stealing it before EMM386 gets a
chance to load. Try putting EMM386 as the first driver after you load
Himem.sys.

Are you trying to load America OnLine high? Also, some TSRs expect to be loaded
above the 64K line. Tray loading America OnLine with LOADFIX. For an example of
how to use the LOADFIX command see section 1.2 in the Appnotes.txt file.

Hope this helps,

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 11105 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  13:59:22
Sb: #9600-Driver problems
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Candace Krongold 75046,3474

Candace,

Smartdrive won't load if it detects, just like it says, an incompatible disk
partition like DMDRVR.BIN. You can get around this by using the /P parameter
which will force Smartdrive to load. However, we don't recommend this as this
will put your system/hard drive at risk. Smartdrive expects standard DOS
partitioning schemes and can make mistakes if it tries to do something to your
hard drive that may be interpreted incorrectly by such programs as DMDRVR.BIN.

If you are going to load EMM386 exclusively for loading devices and TSRs high,
then you will want to use the NOEMS switch. (Make sure also that you have UMB
on your DOS line in the Config.sys file: DOS=HIGH,UMB.) If EMM386 is having
trouble finding memory then maybe somethings stealing it before EMM386 gets a
chance to load. Try putting EMM386 as the first driver after you load
Himem.sys.

Are you trying to load America OnLine high? Also, some TSRs expect to be loaded
above the 64K line. Tray loading America OnLine with LOADFIX. For an example of
how to use the LOADFIX command see section 1.2 in the Appnotes.txt file.

Hope this helps,

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9601 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  10:24:13
Sb: #Undocumented command
Fm: Harri Talvitie 100015,1424
To: All

I have found a undocumented command in MS-DOS 5.0 called TRUENAME. Why is it
undocumented? What does it exactly do?

Are there any other undocumented features or commands that we should be awere
of?

Harri Talvitie



There are 3 Replies.

#: 9692 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  14:14:10
Sb: #9601-Undocumented command
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Harri Talvitie 100015,1424 (X)

Harri:  TRUENAME returns the name of a file with its complete path.  It is used
within DOS to determine the real name of a file if it is on a SUBSTed dirve.
For example, if you have issued the command: SUBST E: C:\BATCH, and then do a
TRUENAME E:\DOIT.BAT, TRUENAME will respond with C:\BATCH\DOIT.BAT.  It is not
documented because MS might want to change it someday.

 - Legare




#: 9701 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  14:47:46
Sb: #9601-Undocumented command
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Harri Talvitie 100015,1424 (X)

TRUENAME was present in DOS 4.01, and it returns the true path location of a
file on drives that have been ASSIGNed, JOINed, or SUBSTituted...or so the
thrid party books say.  Since I do not do any of three listed things, I have
never had a call to try the command.



#: 10034 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  12:53:24
Sb: #9601-Undocumented command
Fm: Bill Spindler 70012,14
To: Harri Talvitie 100015,1424 (X)

Interestingly, it is undocumented in my PC-DOS docs but it is included in the
"DOS 5 Users Handbook"  (Masters &King, publ by Sybex) just as if it was a
documented command...Bill

#: 9603 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  10:37:21
Sb: #AutoCAD compatibility
Fm: David Byrnes 76220,3601
To: Mike Singleton 72550,1415 (X)

Mike - as you probably know, AutoCAD 386 (Releases 10 and 11) are different
from previous versions in that they use a built-in DOS Extender. All of the
executable runs in your high memory.

All versions of AutoCAD 386 use the Phar Lap DOS Extender, version 2.2. Version
2.2 was designed to be VCPI-compatible, which, at the time, was the only game
in town. The two leading memory managers, QEMM and 386^max are also VCPI-
compatible, and therefore make ideal memory managers for AutoCAD 386 (in case
you HAVE to use expanded memory, and many users don't).

And then along came Windows 3.0 and HIMEM.SYS, another memory manager which
would also be a good choice for AutoCAD 386 -- except that Microsoft, in its
wisdom, decided to invent a new expanded memory spec, DPMI. Neither QEMM,
nor 386^max, nor AutoCAD 386 (because of the Phar Lap DOS Extender) were
compatible with DPMI (although the latest versions of the first two now are).

What NEWDX will do for you is to go into your AutoCAD executable (ACAD.EXE),
scrub out the Phar Lap 2.2 DOS Extender, and replace it with version 2.6.
This version can live with HIMEM.SYS (it recognizes XMS) and can run under
Windows as a full screen application.

It can also live with DOS 5's HIMEM.SYS; in fact, AutoCAD 386 will run like
a slug, if at all, if you DON'T update ACAD.EXE in this way. If you have the
very latest version of Release 11 (11c2), there is an additional disk in the
set that includes NEWDX.EXE and its docs. If you have an earlier version of
Release 10 or 11, you can download the program and docs from the Autodesk
Forum. Look for NEWDX.ZIP in Lib 10.

Dave


There is 1 Reply.

#: 9696 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:23:31
Sb: #9603-AutoCAD compatibility
Fm: Mike Singleton 72550,1415
To: David Byrnes 76220,3601 (X)

Dave....

Thanks a lot for the info.  I guess since I run QEMM for both DOS and Windows
and don't use Himem nor try to run ACAD under Windows, that the problem never
surfaced.  I'll go get the program and make the conversion (while saving a copy
of the unconverted file, of course).

Mike



#: 9613 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:00:46
Sb: AutoCAD compatibility
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Rick Ollerman 72701,2227

Sounds like you need to overide the default A20 handler which is installed by
Himem.  Try some of the other /machine switches on the Himem line.

Eric.



#: 10282 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:47:12
Sb: AutoCAD compatibility
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Rick Ollerman 72701,2227

Rick,

Try a different machine switch with Himem.sys. The A20 line is accessed in
different ways on different machines which can cause significant time
differences depending upon the manner in which it is accessed. When you use
Qemm, are you loading DOS high? If you load DOS high, then every time a DOS
call is made the A20 line must be activated. If the switch you were using had
an extra long delay and Autocad was making a lot of DOS calls, then you might
see a considerable loss in performanc.

I would try 1, 11, 12 and 13 and then the rest. These will hang your machine if
they are wrong, so a bootable floppy handy would be good to have. If none of
these work, you can always use QEMM.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9605 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  10:59:34
Sb: #WINDOWS CONFLICT
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442 (X)

Try removing the STACKS=0,0 from your config.sys



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9686 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  13:17:52
Sb: #9605-WINDOWS CONFLICT
Fm: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406 (X)

Eric:

  >>Try removing the STACKS=0,0 from your config.sys<<

I already tried that.  It didn't make any difference, so I put it back in.


#: 10256 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:44:21
Sb: #WINDOWS CONFLICT
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442 (X)

Andrew,

Have you tried configuring your system with just Himem and the PCTools stuff? I
just have never used (nor would I know how to trouble-shoot) 386MAX stuff. But,
since you have so many things loaded high, and a memory manager other than the
one provided with DOS/Windows, that sure would narrow down the possibilities.

Good Luck!

Nate



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10338 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  14:14:54
Sb: #10256-WINDOWS CONFLICT
Fm: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate:

I havenn't done that yet, mainly because it's such an almighty hassle!  I
know nothing about HIMEM.  The DOS 5 Setup program did eveything for me.
What should I put in my CONFIG.SYS to let Windows run in 386 enhanced mode?

                             -Andrew-


#: 9606 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  10:59:41
Sb: #Pardox Protected 5.0
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Matthew Ackerman 76011,2465 (X)

Did you try the Himem.sys /INT15 switch?   I believe that Paradox requires that
some memory be available via INT 15.

Eric (Microsoft)



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9801 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  20:15:07
Sb: #9606-Pardox Protected 5.0
Fm: Matthew Ackerman 76011,2465
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406 (X)

Yes I tried /INT15=0064 and /INT15=1024  Still no go.  DOS THEN REFUSED TO Load
High and PARADOX would not even load.  Still trying to get this to work.

#: 10257 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:44:27
Sb: #Pardox Protected 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Matthew Ackerman 76011,2465 (X)

Matthew,

So, if you load DOS low then Paradox says not enough memory... How did you get
DOS 3.3 to work with Paradox? Do you have some extra drivers/tsrs that you are
now running that you didn't before?

Loading DOS high, will not put your machine into protect mode. However, loading
EMM386 will. If you are loading EMM386, you will need to use the RAM switch and
establish a page frame in order for Paradox to work properly. For example, have
you tried something like this:

Device=Himem.sys Device=Emm386.exe p0=e000 RAM Dos=High,Umb

If your machine is in protect mode then Paradox will look for expanded memory.
What happens if you boot without Config.sys or Autoexec.bat and run Paradox?
How much memory exactly does Paradox need? If you boot with nothing but DOS
loaded high, no extra tsrs or drivers, then you should have quite a bit more
free memory than when you had DOS 3.0.

Please let me know if any of my suggestions help.

Nate



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10802 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  22:33:48
Sb: #10257-Pardox Protected 5.0
Fm: Matthew Ackerman 76011,2465
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I have no extra Divice Drivers in my 3.3 Configuration that I did not try to
use with 5.0.  As to using EMM386 it will not work on my 286 (where I have the
PDOX and Quatro Pro on).  I do have 2 full megs of Ext, 2 megs of EMS 4.0
Hardware/software suported.  With 3.0 and 5.0 I used QRAM to load HIGH my FILES
and Drive Table (for G - Z).  I used QEXT (QRAM PRODUCT) to be my XMS manager
which allowed PDOX to control the A20.   I tried using these products with 5.0
but could not load High DOS.  Tried using the HIMEM and got DOS To load high
but could not run PDOX protected. Tried this in various combinations and with
all combinations of parameters on HIMEM with no luck.

I have run this with only FILES=40 (minumum for PDOX - QPRO connection) Buffers
= 20, Install SHARE.EXE and no TSRS.  THis lost my EMS and (QPRO uses this) and
still could not get PDOX to run.  (SHARE is needed to link the PDOX and QPRO
together and let then share the DB files).  Put in The HIMEM.sys and then Could
run PDOX (very limited) in REAL mode (no Link up to QPRO) and only small
Databases without Severe Disk Swapping.  Put in the EVEREX Memory manager (EMM)
to give me 2 megs of fast EMS and again could run PDOX in REAL MODE only but at
least faster (swaps went to EMS not DISK).   I cannot get more vannella than
this.  Tried adding my QRAM and QEXT and still no luck.  (all paramneters were
tried at each of these stages with HIMEM.SYS.   My feeling is that HIMEM does
not allow my 286 to run PDOX protected, and with DOS=LOW it is bigger than 3.3
thus not enough conventional memory to run PDOX at all.  I think I will need to
do one of 2 things here ... 1- dump 5.0 and wait for 5.01 or get a 386.  The
First is cheaper but the second has other merits.

Thanks for your advice anyway
     MAtt

#: 10260 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:44:44
Sb: Pardox Protected 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: David Schoemaker 72450,1063

David,

You will need to establish a page frame of some sort. As I understand page
frames they must be a 64k contiguous block of Upper Memory. You can specify a
page frame and have UMB support by using the RAM switch. But, the rumor around
here is that you can trick Paradox by only specifying one fourth of the page
frame and it'll still work.

So, if you have a free 16k segment at E000 then this is what the syntax of the
device line in your config.sys would look like:

device=emm386.exe p0=e000 ram

That and of course himem.sys and dos=high,umb ought to get you going. If it
doesn't, make sure you aren't experiencing an adapter conflict by checking on
the information at boot up given by emm386. If it gives any errors then you
might want to shift the address and/or exclude a range of memory using the x=
parameter.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9607 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  10:59:53
Sb: #AST Bravo Remm.sys
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: ERIC LOPEZ 76077,442 (X)

I suspect that REMM is not recognizing the extended memory when DOS is loaded
high because HIMEM.SYS is loaded.  By definition of the XMS spec, an XMS driver
is to hook INT 15 and report zero available extended memory via the INT 15
call.  this is to prevent older apps from stomping on XMS memory.  This is
great for XMS aware programs (which can get the memory via XMS), but for older
apps it makes it appear that there is no memory.

You can use the /INT15 switch on the HIMEM line to specify that some of the
memory be left available for INT15 allocation.  In order for this to work, the
program which uses the INT15 allocation must respect VDISK headers (which REMM
probably does).  If it doesn't, it will walk on DOS.  I suggest you try it and
see how it works.

Eric (Microsoft)



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10157 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  06:31:50
Sb: #9607-AST Bravo Remm.sys
Fm: ERIC LOPEZ 76077,442
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406 (X)

Eric:

Thanx for the tip.  The INT15 switch solved the problem!

Regards, Eric

#: 9608 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:00:03
Sb: #new LINK.EXE
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373 (X)

The linker which shipped with DOS has not changed in several versions.  If you
have an old version of DOS, simply SETVER LINK.EXE to the version.  Then you
can use it.

Eric.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10758 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  21:24:37
Sb: #9608-new LINK.EXE
Fm: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

Thanks, Eric, but I tried that.  You see, Microrim shipped a special LINK.EXE
with their R:Base Compiler product.  It was specially written to work with that
compiler and DOS's link wouldn't handle the overlay management tasks, etc.
Anyway, I've TRIED SETVER on it to no avail.  It just plain doesn't like it.

Still looking for a solution --

                                                                 -- dfw -
#: 9643 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:54:21
Sb: #new LINK.EXE
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373 (X)

Douglas,

Are you sure that you are using the LINK that came with R:Base? When DOS 5
installs, it will do two things that make me ask you this: 1st, it will leave
any old copy of LINK it happens to find in your current DOS directory. 2nd, it
puts DOS in the first position of your PATH statement. So, although LINK wasn't
shipped with DOS 5, after installation, what you might be executing, rather
than the LINK you expected, is the LINK that you've never used. Check on this.
Also, use SETVER to send 4.01 to the R:Base LINK and see if that fixes it.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10759 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  21:24:52
Sb: #9643-new LINK.EXE
Fm: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Thanks for the comments, Nate.  I'll try the SERVER for 4.01 (I told it 4.0
before).  As for the "old" DOS LINK.EXE ... well, I deleted it from my hard
disk back when I was running DOS 3.3, when I received the compiler.  Then, when
I upgraded to 4.01 I deleted THAT version of LINK.  So, a DOS LINK has not been
on the drive in ages!

An interesting thing though is this quote from a file that was left in my DOS
subdirectory after the DOS upgrade:

Lines 163  --->  170  of the file APPNOTES.TXT which shipped with "MSDOS 5.0
Upgrade"  :

1.9 LINK.EXE: Unexpected Error Messages
--------------------------------------If you get unexpected error messages
while linking programs, make sure you don't have an old version of LINK.EXE in
your DOS directory or path.

LINK.EXE is not supplied with MS-DOS 5.0.

As you can see, the wording is a bit, shall we say, terse?  Does this mean that
old versions of LINK won't work?  (So it would seem to imply)  Please note that
they don't mention SERVER here.  That's the end of the section on LINK, by the
way.  Nothing more.

I'd be willing to PAY for a 5.0 level LINKER.  I'm sure there are many C
programmers out there with the same feeling (or more angry feelings!).

                                                                 -- dfw -
#: 10800 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  22:26:29
Sb: #9643-#new LINK.EXE
Fm: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate:

Okay, I did a bit of poking around with LINK.EXE and SERVER and so forth
tonight.  Here's what I did and what I found:

I keep the R:Base version of LINK.EXE in a .ZIP file in a subdirectory on my C:
drive.  When I want to compile with this compiler, I unzip (PKUNZIP) the entire
compiler fileset to a ramdrive (D:) and add it to the path (via batch file, of
course!).  Just to make sure that link was getting its SERVER updated properly,
I unzipped it to the C:\DOS directory permanently (well, for now) and ran
SERVER on it as version 4.01.  Then I rebooted (strictly by the book up to
here).  I removed the "unzip" command for LINK.EXE from my compiling batch
file, since I want to make sure that the LINK.EXE in the C:\DOS directory is
the only one around.  Okay, on to the meat of things --

Any attempt to use the R:Base compiler results in .OBJ file creation (as
always), then an error:  "Packed file is corrupt".  This appears to be an error
re: LINK.

Being the thorough beast that I am, I went into the DOS subdir and typed
SETVER.  The interesting thing is that there is an entry for LINK (4.00) and an
entry for LINK.EXE (4.01, which I added tonight).  Could this phantom LINK have
anything to do with my problems?

I'm going to try removing the SETVER setting for LINK, just for grins.  (I know
... I might regret this later ... but at this point, it's worth a try!)

                                                                    -- dfw --





There is 1 Reply.

#: 11004 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  04:29:47
Sb: #10800-new LINK.EXE
Fm: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621
To: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373

Doug,

     Most often the "Packed File Corrupt" message occurs because an .EXE file
was packed with MS's EXEPACK program and finds itself uncompressing below the
1000h address.  This can be fixed using the LOADFIX kludge that comes with MSD5
or better using the LOWFIX utility that is in the Library over in the IBMSYS
forum.  Hope this helps.  People are also finding files packed with PKLITE
causing similar errors (some of the new PCT7 files) and the LOWFIX program is
supposed to patch then as well.

Bill, PCWW.

#: 9971 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  09:05:36
Sb: #new LINK.EXE
Fm: Gene Smith 71221,64
To: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373 (X)

I'm still using my old LINK (3.65 or 3.68, I think) as well as TLINK from
Borland without any noted problems. I use QuickBASIC 4.5, Borland C++,
dBFast/Plus, Turbo Pascal v6 all without any noted problems??? I do run SETVER
and it could (I haven't looked) and it could be telling them it's 4.0 or
similar.

Gene

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10760 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  21:25:00
Sb: #9971-#new LINK.EXE
Fm: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373
To: Gene Smith 71221,64 (X)

This is interesting.  What I'd like to know (on an academic level) is how
you're managing to use these old LINK'ers without any problems.  Granted, it's
possible that in MY situation the LINK program that came with the R:Base
Compiler was "special" and may not be able to work with DOS 5. However, someone
else out here a few days ago mentioned that TLINK and something else ("RLINK"?)
wouldn't work for him either.

What did you do differently, I wonder?  Any insight here is welcome.

Thanks for the comments!                                          -- dfw -
There is 1 Reply.

#: 10861 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  09:12:26
Sb: #10760-#new LINK.EXE
Fm: Gene Smith 71221,64
To: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373 (X)

I didn't do anything. I had Link (3.69) from Quick C in my DOS (4.01) dir and
when I upgraded, it left it alone. I've used it for Quick BASIC 4.5 to generate
several stand alone apps that work fine. I also have tested DOS 5.0 using Turbo
Pascal 6.0, Windows, Turbo C++, Borland C++, Logitech Modula-2, dBFast for DOS,
dBFast for Windows, RM COBOL-85. So far, the only problem I have encountered is
the lack of a DOS 5.0 specific library in Modula-2 (of course, this was a
problem in 4.01 as well). I may be using link different than you are, but I
don't know. Most of my uses don't benefit from careful tuning (limited graphics
and no real time) so I tend to just use the compiler's optimization controls. I
also seldom mix languages. What I write usually becomes the property of my
company and they frown on mixed calls. I also am running SETVER without
modification.

Gene

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10908 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  13:38:38
Sb: #10861-new LINK.EXE
Fm: Douglas F. Wachob 76424,2373
To: Gene Smith 71221,64 (X)

Thanks for the info, Gene.  Glad to hear that not _all_ of the old LINK.EXE
programs are having the same difficulty as the one that came with the R:Base
Compiler.  Oh well, back to the drawing board (or back to DOS 4.01 ...).
Unfortunately, Microrim has not been much help on this one.

                                                                 -- dfw -
#: 9609 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:00:12
Sb: #disappeaing message
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Alan Lehman 71435,1670 (X)

Autocad has patches to work around the problem with some versions of Autocad 10
not loading when DOS is loaded high.   You will need to get these from Autocad.

Eric.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10735 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  18:53:36
Sb: #9609-disappeaing message
Fm: Alan Lehman 71435,1670
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

Thanks for your help on AutoCad Rel.10.

#: 10274 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:45:55
Sb: #disappeaing message
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Alan Lehman 71435,1670 (X)

Alan,

Your message scrolled off of compuserve because of the sheer volume of messages
that have been posted in this forum since the release of DOS 5. I wish I had
the power to increase our buffer size, but I don't. In regards to your deleted
query, if you scan the current section you will find some information on
Autocad and DOS 5.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10734 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  18:52:12
Sb: #10274-disappeaing message
Fm: Alan Lehman 71435,1670
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Thanks for the help

#: 9610 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:00:20
Sb: MS DOS 5.0 Respones
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Michael Levison 70473,2315 (X)

I suspect your keyboard problem is related to HIMEM.SYS.  Try some of the other
/machine switches for HIMEM (try them all).

As a work around until a resolution can be found, you can remove the HIMEM
driver from your config.sys.  You should try this anyway to see if it is the
problem.

Eric  (Microsoft)



#: 10862 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  09:12:38
Sb: MS DOS 5.0 Respones
Fm: Michael Levison 70473,2315
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I have solved the problem with a solution I picked up from Prodigy.   I used
the following line in my autoexec.bat:
KEYB US,437 /E.  I loaded this on loadhigh and I have had no problems since.

#: 9611 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:00:29
Sb: #Kaypro 286 & DOS 5.0
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Steven C. Martin 70233,65 (X)

Sounds like you have a hardware problem.   Reason I say that is that as you
say, the machine doesn't even POST.  POST occurs before DOS is started.  That
it happened after you loaded DOS 5 is probably an unfortunate coincidence.  I
suggest you have a technician look at your hardware.

Eric. (Microsoft)



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10464 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  23:09:24
Sb: #9611-Kaypro 286 & DOS 5.0
Fm: Steven C. Martin 70233,65
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

Actually, POST does occur.  For some reason, I thought the memory check was not
going on (which is my primary evidence of POST with Phoenix BIOS).  I tried
booting DOS 5 again from a floppy; the memory check is completed, then the hard
drive light comes on, then the floppy light comes on and the machine hangs.

I am aware that I have hardware problems--hardware conflicts,   actually.  Part
of this is apparantly due to the configuration of memory chips on my
motherboard (apparantly my 384K extended memory is being used as shadow RAM,
but I do not suspect my sources of having specs, so would rather hear it
confirmed); my BIOS may be at fault,  also.

However, the memory problems only show up when I use DOS 5--not
DOS 3.3--I think this is software failing to communicate with the hardware.

My opinion is based partly on a communication with the author of a extended
memory testing program.  He told me that HIMEM.SYS includes certain parameters,
allowing one to specify different hardware types...

#: 10280 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:46:48
Sb: #Kaypro 286 & DOS 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Steven C. Martin 70233,65 (X)

Steven,

Have you tried the different machine switches with Himem.sys? The reason we
have all of the new switches, 1 - 16 now, is that there is no industrial
standard for the way in which the High Memory Area is accessed, and,
subsequently, extended memory.

If you are having problems with the POST then it's not DOS related as the POST
occurs before DOS is loaded.

How is your memory configured? Are you using that 1 meg to shadow your ROM? If
so, disable the shadowing and see if that helps. Do you have any trouble when
you boot with Himem.sys and DOS=LOW? This would determine whether or not you
were having trouble with just Himem.sys or DOS being loaded high.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10463 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  23:09:01
Sb: #10280-Kaypro 286 & DOS 5.0
Fm: Steven C. Martin 70233,65
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I haven't tried the different HIMEM switches yet, it just occurred to me that
the switches (I have heard about them) might be listed in the manual.  I wish I
had found them before screaming at people, I might have solved my problem
already, though I suspect my problem lies in the MSDOS.SYS or IO.SYS in DOS
5...

1) I tried loading DOS 5 with no autoexec.bat or config.sys--no luck.
2) I think it's not a POST problem--I had thought my machine was not going
through the memory check (my main evidence of POST), but this is not true--I
watched DOS 5 fail to boot again recently, and saw the memory check.
3) I was told that the 384 K in my system is being used as shadow RAM,  but I
suspect this, as I once had a 286 with shadow RAM configured in CMOS, this
machine has no such beast, and no mention of it in the owner's guide.  I do
have some use of the extended memory.

I have problems with other extended memory usage as well.  I have heard that
the DOS RAM Drive (which works here, under DOS 3.3) uses standard BIOS calls to
access extended memory, and that other programs do not.   If this is true, and
if it is the fault of the system programs, I do not see that changing
config.sys will help,  though I am willing to try loading HIMEM.SYS with
DOS=LOW, or anything else you suggest.

What is the order of loading of the system programs--does config.sys come in
after the system programs?

#: 9612 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:00:38
Sb: edit/qbasic/etc
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Joshua W. Wertheim 76011,1530 (X)

You need the MS-DOS upgrade.  The IBM upgrade QBasic and EDIT programs only
work on machines made by IBM!

BTW: MS-DOS *DOES* support 2.88 Meg diskettes *EXACTLY* the same as
     PC-DOS.  We don't push it because we don't sell diskette drives...

Eric (Microsoft).



#: 10281 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:47:01
Sb: edit/qbasic/etc
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Joshua W. Wertheim 76011,1530

Joshua,

You shouldn't use PC-DOS unless you have a true IBM computer. As you've
discovered QBasic and EDIT won't work. This is because the PC-DOS version will
only support QBasic in ROM. When it goes out to ROM to look for the code it
finds nothing. QuickBasic programs are not going to be compatible with QBasic
necessarily, because QBasic is a subset of QuickBasic and may not support a
QuickBasic program.

I know compaq is coming out with their version of DOS 5 which would be
preferable, but if you return the PC-DOS 5 version and buy the generic upgrade
you'll at least be able to run QBasic and EDIT.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9614 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  11:00:56
Sb: Re-read Drive in Shell
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Dave Shomers 72137,1233 (X)

You need to tell it to refresh the disk.  This can be done via View.Refresh, or
by pressing F5 (whole disk), or Ctrl-F5 (selected directory).

Eric.



#: 9851 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:35:30
Sb: Re-read Drive in Shell
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Dave Shomers 72137,1233 (X)

Unselect the flopy drive icon in both of the lists and you should be okay when
changing disks, I am...



Dev



#: 9615 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  11:01:02
Sb: DOSSHELL Swap File & RAM
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Daniel J. Karnes 76114,3233

The only way to swap to extended or expanded memory is to use a RAM disk and
set TEMP= environment to point to it.

Eric (Microsoft).



#: 10499 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:51:51
Sb: DOSSHELL Swap File & RAM
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Daniel J. Karnes 76114,3233

Undocumented?!<g>

Are you running DOSSHELL from the server or the workstation?  Have you guys
tried the idea of using the SET temp=[drivename]:[path] to direct them to
either a specific direcory or(gasp) a ramdrive?  Try it and let me know if it
works......

Dev





#: 9616 S8/BASIC Conversions
    03-Jul-91  11:01:12
Sb: Manifest...Crash
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: John Pickens 73157,2410 (X)

You need to get the version of manifest which ships with QEMM 5.11 or later.

Eric.



#: 9649 S8/BASIC Conversions
    03-Jul-91  11:55:18
Sb: Manifest...Crash
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Vernon G. Box 75506,2113 (X)

Vernon,

You're right, but sometimes, depending upon the hardware, it may be necessary
to upgrade to version 1.01.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9618 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  11:05:01
Sb: #DOS5,DRDOS,FORMAT,286
Fm: JAMES S. CAWOOD 71441,263
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Will do!  Thanks for your insight and interest.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10518 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:54:20
Sb: #9618-DOS5,DRDOS,FORMAT,286
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: JAMES S. CAWOOD 71441,263 (X)

awwwwww shucks....


Dev



#: 9620 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:15:32
Sb: #DOS5.0 and Compaq386s
Fm: richard kraus 74020,270
To: all

I have not been able to take advantage of DOS 5.0's DEVICEHIGH and LOADHIGH
commands.  I have a Compaq 386s with 5MB of RAM. I called Microsoft's
TechSupport to verify that the EMM386.sys was correct. In a recent issue of PC
Computing, there is a suggestion that Compaq does not allow use of UMB or high
memory -- does anyone else have this problem? Thanks



There are 3 Replies.

#: 10654 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  09:59:08
Sb: #9620-DOS5.0 and Compaq386s
Fm: Kent Taylor 73540,1703
To: richard kraus 74020,270

I have a Compaq 386s with 6MB ram and had no difficulty installing DOS 5.0 and
using the DEVICEHIGH and LOADHIGH commands.  I am using the NOEMS parameter
because I use HIMEM.SYS and Windows 3.0.



#: 11097 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  13:51:35
Sb: #9620-DOS5.0 and Compaq386s
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: richard kraus 74020,270

Richard,

I assume that the technician from MS did a thorough job, but if you don't mind,
could you post your Config.sys file for the people up here to read? We have a
few Compaqs of the same model here at Product Support and people are loading
DOS and other programs high successfully.

Thanks,

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 11106 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  13:59:34
Sb: #9620-DOS5.0 and Compaq386s
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: richard kraus 74020,270

Richard,

I assume that the technician from MS did a thorough job, but if you don't mind,
could you post your Config.sys file for the people up here to read? We have a
few Compaqs of the same model here at Product Support and people are loading
DOS and other programs high successfully.

Thanks,

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9621 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:16:43
Sb: #DOS5/ESDI hard drives
Fm: Chris Wilson 74146,2310
To: all

I tried to install DOS 5 on my 80386/25 PC Brand machine with an AMI BIOS dated
4/30/89, 16Mb memory machine.  It has a single hard drive, a Micropolis ESDI
338Mb using a Western Digital controller.  At first, SETUP said I had an
incompatible hard drive.  So I backed up the drive from DOS 3.31 to tape and
deleted all partitions, then remade the partitions to 3 54Mb logical drives (my
tape system holds 60Mb per tape, and SCO Unix takes up the balance of the
drive).  I made a floppy copy of DOS 5.  All partitions were formatted using
DOS 5. SETUP still said I had an incompatible hard drive.  Since I like to live
on the (literally) bleeding edge, I ran SETUP /U.  DOS 5 installed and seems to
be working okay (although Norton Utilities v4 has some problems, and version 5
stinks).  Is there a problem with ESDI drives and DOS 5?  The drive is telling
DOS that it has 636 cylinders, 16 heads, and 63 sectors per track (via the
controller, that is not what it really has.  The drive documentation says that
is to be expected.)  Also, SMARTDRV version 3.13 that came with DOS 5 doesn't
like the hard disk, although SMARTDRV version 3.06 that came with Windows 3
doesn't mind at all.  Any hints, suggestions?  I am using QEMM if it makes a
difference (correct version per Quarterdeck).

Chris Wilson



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9988 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  09:41:57
Sb: #9621-#DOS5/ESDI hard drives
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Chris Wilson 74146,2310 (X)

There is nothing intrinsically problematic about ESDI drives.  I am using an
ESDI drive on this machine.

If I were you, I'd worry about the reason why DOS 5 doesn't like my drive. What
does it say about compatibility exactly?  (I've only seen messages about
incompatible partitions.  Never a message about an incompatible drive.)

Norton v. 4 can be trouble.  You should get the latest version.  I read that
the problem is that earlier versions assumed that Share would be present. Now
that DOS 5 handles those chores, the older Nortons can muck up large
partitions.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10211 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  10:12:51
Sb: #9988-#DOS5/ESDI hard drives
Fm: Chris Wilson 74146,2310
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill,

I found the problem with my drive.  DOS5 is miffed about the SCO Unix
partition on the drive.  After using the /U parameter with SETUP to tell it
"Get over it!", the drive seems to be working fine with three 50+ MB
partitions.

Norton 4 doesn't handle the large partitions well (at least on those
programs that deal directly with the drive, like DISKTEST, DIRSORT, and
VolLabel), but FILEFIND and FILESIZE work fine.  I have Norton 6 (or 5,
whatever the latest version is), but IMHO Symantec has mucked up a fine
product in the interest of ease of use.  Now, it is easy to use, but also
easily useless.  I guess I will be switching to another utility package.

BTW, the error message I was getting was "incompatible partition", not
incompatible drive.

Chris Wilson



There are 2 Replies.

#: 11098 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  13:51:45
Sb: #10211-DOS5/ESDI hard drives
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Chris Wilson 74146,2310

Chris,

I just got to this thread... I was going to suggest /U as the setup program
will detect the UNIX portion of your drive and display an error message. This
is what /U is for. The new version of Smartdrive is safer than the old one in
that it will detect more partitioning schemes. As long as your hard-drive
controller card supports your hard drive, i.e. you don't need another piece of
software to run your hard drive, you should be able to use Smartdrive safely
with the /P parameter.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 11107 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  13:59:41
Sb: #10211-DOS5/ESDI hard drives
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Chris Wilson 74146,2310

Chris,

I just got to this thread... I was going to suggest /U as the setup program
will detect the UNIX portion of your drive and display an error message. This
is what /U is for. The new version of Smartdrive is safer than the old one in
that it will detect more partitioning schemes. As long as your hard-drive
controller card supports your hard drive, i.e. you don't need another piece of
software to run your hard drive, you should be able to use Smartdrive safely
with the /P parameter.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9622 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  11:23:50
Sb: #MS/DOS Encyclopedia
Fm: Shawn Patrick 76117,2120
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200

Is there any information about MS coming out with a new version of the MS DOS
Encyclopedia that includes DOS 5.0 info?  Thanks.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10740 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  19:05:14
Sb: #9622-MS/DOS Encyclopedia
Fm: Reinhold J. Gerharz 70662,2262
To: Shawn Patrick 76117,2120

I'm still waiting for an MS Dos Encyclopedia that covers DOS 4.
RG.

#: 10792 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:22:24
Sb: #9622-MS/DOS Encyclopedia
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Shawn Patrick 76117,2120

Shawn,

I haven't heard of work being done on such a book--you should call Customer
Service at 1-800-426-9400 to get information.  I just tried to call MS-Press,
but they've gone home, and won't be back until Monday.  Their phone number is
1-800-888-3303.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9623 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:43:48
Sb: #STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Christopher Unsicker 76244,1631
To: JAMES GLEASON 76336,352 (X)

I'm sure that it is an axiom of Murphy's Law that crap (programs,  data, etc)
expands to fill availble disk space!

Sort of a different subject, but has anyone noticed a trend in software whereby
the new programs want to dominate our systems - they want to put themselves in
my path; muck with my CONFIG.SYS,  AUTOEXEC.BAT, WIN.INI, SYSTEM.INI; take up
as much disk space as usual; etc...?

I've lost count of how many times my *.INI or CONFIG files have been whacked by
some program.

Oh well....


There is 1 Reply.

#: 9671 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  12:55:34
Sb: #9623-#STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: JAMES GLEASON 76336,352
To: Christopher Unsicker 76244,1631 (X)

yes, changing the autoexec and config files has gotten pretty common.  I guess
that's the price we pay for wanting the products to be so self-installable and
thus easy.  I particularly appreciate those products that ask permission along
with explaining EXACTLY what they are about to do FOR me before they do it (of
course, with the option of having me say "No, don't do it for (i.e., TO...) me.
These well done installs even back up the original version in case I don't like
what they have done in the name of user friendliness.  Given these criteria
being met, I don't have problems with the install approach, but I agree with
you, too often these are not met.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10717 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  16:52:46
Sb: #9671-STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Christopher Unsicker 76244,1631
To: JAMES GLEASON 76336,352 (X)

Well put - I do appreciate the option of viewing any proposed changes a la
Windows 3.0.

Chris

#: 9863 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  20:57:18
Sb: STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: David Claiborne 72631,100
To: Larry Mc Carthy 76535,3032 (X)

Stac is being promoted by Egghead along with DOS 5.0. There is a special sheet
of instructions available at Egghead on how to install Stacker with DOS 5.0.
You can also get the information by calling Stac's tech support line. The main
problem is if you have to repartition the hard disk.

#: 10094 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  19:18:03
Sb: #STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: John Kelly 76206,1133
To: Mark Shook 74040,1331 (X)

I just installed DOS 5.0 with stacker on a Toshiba T3100SX.  I was more than a
little worried but it works great and freed up about 80K in the lower 640K.  No
problems whatsoever!!!!  I did download install instructions from Stacker's
bulletin board, which probably saved me some grief.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10457 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  21:59:13
Sb: #10094-STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Earl Whaley 73747,3721
To: John Kelly 76206,1133

Hey Guys - Stac has just released a batch file program that will automatically
install MS-DOS 5.0 on existing STACKER volumes !
I've just used it and it works like a charm. It is available for download from
STAC's BBS:[phone] & [phone].

#: 10096 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  19:19:36
Sb: STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: John Kelly 76206,1133
To: Larry Mc Carthy 76535,3032

I just did it and it works great!  Just download the instal instructions for
DOS 5.0 from Stacker's bulletin board.

#: 10097 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  19:21:28
Sb: #STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: John Kelly 76206,1133
To: Frank Emens 72415,571 (X)

If you have a 386 you won't need the coprocessor board and you won't be able to
see any difference in speed.  I have a friend with an XT who installed Stacker
with the board and actually speeded up his disk access!

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10755 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  21:12:51
Sb: #10097-#STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Mark Shook 74040,1331
To: John Kelly 76206,1133

John,

I have a '286 and am using the co-processor board w/ Stacker.  Should I return
it and get the software only version or, in the long run, will I be happier
with the board.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10843 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  05:34:16
Sb: #10755-STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Doug Thompson 74270,3516
To: Mark Shook 74040,1331 (X)

Mark.
If I can break in here, it is my understanding that the coprocessor board works
best on slower systems and provides a higher compression ratio on all systems.
I'm using the board on a 386SX/20 at home and have a good compression ratio
(almost 2:1) and no noticable slowdown in disk access.  I'm using a 40 meg: C:
drive (uncompressed); a 78 meg. D: drive (40 meg. HardcardII compressed with
Stacker); and a 178 meg. E: drive (80 meg. HardcardII compressed with Stacker).
I'm using swapdisk to restore the two compressed drives to D: and E:  The
system works like a charm and I now have nearly 300 meg. of disk space.

#: 10452 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  21:15:53
Sb: STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Abie Kent 71441,1610
To: Larry Mc Carthy 76535,3032

I've been running Stacker with 4.01 and just installed 5.0 this evening.
Following the instructions from Stac made it a breeze.I can't see anyreason not
to upgrade!

#: 10636 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  08:49:41
Sb: STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Mark Shook 74040,1331
To: JAMES GLEASON 76336,352 (X)

Thanks for the info, James, I think I'll keep it!



#: 10637 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  08:49:48
Sb: STACKER W/ 5.0
Fm: Mark Shook 74040,1331
To: Frank Emens 72415,571 (X)

Frank, I've been using Stacker only for about a week and a half but I haven't
noticed any difference in my disk access time.  However, I should qualify this
by mentioning that I'm running a '286 clone at 12mhz with an old 40MB MFM
Seagate drive, hardly what you would call state of the art.

My advice would be to get BOTH Stacker and a very large hard drive, assuming
money isn't a major consideration.  This way you could use a portion of your
drive as Stacker volume(s) and still leave a portion "Unstacked".  I still
store my very important data on my normal drive C.

Good Luck



#: 9624 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:49:46
Sb: #SMARTDRV Replacements?
Fm: Jan Larsen [MCI] 76376,3113
To: all

I'm getting the SMARTDRV error message about third party partition (I'm running
DISK MANAGER). I called ONTRACK and they said I would have to get rid of
SMARTDRV.SYS (DISK>1024 cyls). What third party replacements for SMARTDRV.SYS
are out there? Anybody fond of any particular disk cache that works with
WINDOWS and DOS5? I have two names so far - Hyperdisk and PC-KWIK. Does anybody
have good/bad experience with these products? Any help would be appreciated.

There are 3 Replies.

#: 9707 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:57:10
Sb: #9624-SMARTDRV Replacements?
Fm: Chris Wilson 74146,2310
To: Jan Larsen [MCI] 76376,3113 (X)

I have had nothing but problems with SMARTDRV too.  I finally switched to
FAST386 from Future Computer Systems, Inc. [phone].  Only one problem
with it - CodeView hates it.  If you try to debug a program under CodeView
while caching is active, your machine will reboot.  Fortunately, there is a hot
key available that will turn off FAST386 temporarily.  CodeView works fine
then.

Chris Wilson



#: 10012 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  11:23:37
Sb: #9624-SMARTDRV Replacements?
Fm: Eric Hart 71041,44
To: Jan Larsen [MCI] 76376,3113 (X)

I have been using the PC-Tools Deluxe 5.5 PC-CACHE program. As I understand
it, that version is essentially a licensed version of PC-KWIK. In later
versions (6.0, anyway), the Central Point people created their own cache
routine (got tired of paying licensing fees, I suppose), and those versions
are (by reputation) slower than the 5.5 version. PC-Tools 7.0 may be faster.

So far the cache has given no trouble under DOS 5.0. I'm sure the PC-tools
7.0 cache wouldn't either, but I haven't tried it.

--EH


#: 10030 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  12:35:34
Sb: #9624-SMARTDRV Replacements?
Fm: Eric Hart 71041,44
To: Jan Larsen [MCI] 76376,3113 (X)

Jan,

I'm sorry, I recommended the PC-Tools 5.5 cache, not noticing that you were
using Windows as well as DOS 5.0.

That cache *doesn't* work with Windows, at least not in my setup (using
expanded memory for the cache with QEMM, because I also use DV, and there's a
conflict with DV in extended memory mode).

It might work in your setup, but thought I'd better let you know...

--EH


#: 9625 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  11:51:53
Sb: #HIMEM No-Go on COMPAQSLT
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: MELIH YARAMANOGLU 73437,351 (X)

Melih,

How much of your RAM are you devoting to CEMM? If you put in a meg and a half
for expanded memory, then Himem will not find any extended memory because it's
being used by CEMM.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9670 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  12:38:10
Sb: #9625-HIMEM No-Go on COMPAQSLT
Fm: MELIH YARAMANOGLU 73437,351
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate,

Himem.sys is the first thing in Config.sys.  CEMM is not there at all.  By the
way, I'll be away for a while.  Could you please send your reply by E-Mail.

Thanks

#: 9626 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  11:51:57
Sb: dos umb for 8088/8086
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Andy Lazarewicz 72627,1414

Andy,

It depends entirely upon your hardware and what chips you have. For example,
the set made by Chips and Technology can do this. Contact your hardware
manufacturer for specifics on how to get your machine to provide UMB support.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9702 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  14:47:55
Sb: dos umb for 8088/8086
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Andy Lazarewicz 72627,1414

..and let us know too, sound like a lot people upgraded to 286 machines for
nothing <g>.  That has to be a boo-boo on Egghead's part...but I will ask where
you got an 8088/8086 motherboard that supports more than 640K for MS DOS?



#: 9627 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:52:08
Sb: #IBM or MS DOS 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Ron D. Troy 76064,252 (X)

Ron,

Descriptions of the MSDOS 5 Upgrade Setup program have appeared on many
threads. In brief, it installs DOS 5 from your previous DOS version, i.e. you
boot with your old DOS. It creates an UNINSTALL diskette as well as an old_dos
directory of your previous DOS version. In fact, I've pulled the plug on my
machine during installation and been able to reboot off of the UNINSTALL disk.
I then had the option to continue with the installation or restore my old
system.

It maintains any value-added modifications to your previous DOS version. It
loads DOS high if you have an 80286/386. In general, a very user-friendly piece
of software.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9764 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  18:00:11
Sb: #9627-IBM or MS DOS 5.0
Fm: Ron D. Troy 76064,252
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate, the only things I don't like about 5 are 1. that the install assumes that
if you have a 386(sx) that you must truly have extended / high ram even if you
don't, and 2. the packaging makes the same assumption, concluding that you will
use less ram when you may well won't.

But I like the long overdue improvements, and it appears to be as well debugged
as is claimed.  Overall, well done!

        Ron



#: 9628 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:52:17
Sb: #MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: R J Decker 70320,172 (X)

R J,

In the case of a machine like a Tandy, where modifications to DOS are necessary
in order for everything to function properly, I agree with you. But, if you
have a fairly generic machine, your OEM version will not come with, for
example, an upgrade for Disk Manager. It may or may not come with a very
user-friendly setup program. In this case, depending upon the level of the
user, and of course the price, the generic upgrade may be the best choice.

Nate



There are 2 Replies.

#: 9703 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:48:02
Sb: #9628-#MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I have to say something here...before June 11th it was always "see the OEM".
Now that you folks are direct selling DOS, it is patently obvious that you have
lost sight of what may be in the customer's best interests.  It may behoove you
to start showing some prudence again...



There are 3 Replies.

#: 10011 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  11:23:27
Sb: #9703-#MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: Eric Hart 71041,44
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

Steve,

I found that the "generic" upgrade handled Compaq 4.01 very well, including
leaving me with a MODE command that supports COMPAQ-specific functions. The
install routine informed me that it had found COMPAQ DOS, saved the old DOS
in a directory, and provided me with a 4.01 boot disk.

Given that Compaq is not yet shipping an upgrade to 5.0, this seems an
excellent route for Compaq owners.

--EH


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10289 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:47:46
Sb: #10011-MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Eric Hart 71041,44 (X)

I am glad you seem to be having no difficulties.  The point that I am making is
that for advice to have credibility, it has to be at least consistent. Another
message here is from someone, who points out correctly, that claiming that MS
DOS is more "robust" than PC DOS based on the fact that its install program has
more features...is ridiculous!  In actuality, it SHOULD be true, as MS is
trying to upgrade hundreds of potetional variations, as opposed to IBM only
having to deal with a few.  Nevertheless <time for the impolite version> have
often reduced themselves to the level of the salespersons at my local store, ,
i. e.: trumpeting the feature list but being unable to really explain it <well
I guess that was politer than it could have been>.  <now for the slam> Given
the suppossedly massive betasite program, there are a number of questions that
go unanswered around here.  I in fairness will also note the massive message
volume.  I do feel that if the betasite program really included all of those
machines, there should have been a number of prepared "stock" answers to these
286 and 386 configuration questions.  As for the 8088/8086 questions, an MS
staffer on GEnie indicated that they had a half dozen different XT clones IN
THE DEPARTMENT...

I know, I am complaing too much!  The UPS man just arrived with my copies of
both upgrades, so my adventure truly begins!  Have Fun!



#: 11102 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  13:52:10
Sb: #9703-MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202

Steve,

As I just said, if your machine requires modifications to the MS-DOS core, then
your OEM is the best place to go. However, as there are about three-thousand
noname OEMs out there now who simple buy MS-DOS from us and then ship it with
their computers in, for example, versions 4 and 3.3 then there is no harm in
buy the Upgrade directly from Microsoft and not wait for your OEM to release
its version.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 11110 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  14:00:09
Sb: #9703-MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202

Steve,

As I just said, if your machine requires modifications to the MS-DOS core, then
your OEM is the best place to go. However, as there are about three-thousand
noname OEMs out there now who simple buy MS-DOS from us and then ship it with
their computers in, for example, versions 4 and 3.3 then there is no harm in
buy the Upgrade directly from Microsoft and not wait for your OEM to release
its version.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 10618 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  06:26:33
Sb: #9628-#MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: R J Decker 70320,172
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

We are in synch.

For an original OEM version which is essentially just a relabel of the MS box
(if at all), the MS upgrade is the way to go. It is doubtful that that OEM will
even go through the trouble to come out with their own upgrade and thus folks
should rely on the MS generic upgrade. The same for OEM versions which were
just MS-DOS with some added utilities. It is a really good move that MS _did_
decide to come out with the upgrade, so the many users running DOS x.x on their
MTM4 (Macao Turbo Mark4 - my apologies to Macao, HK, &c) can upgrade to DOS
5.0.

  An owner of a OEM's value-added DOS running on the OEM equipment should look
to the the OEM's upgrade, if available, as a prime upgrade path. If the OEM
goes through the trouble to generate an upgrade package, it would send a strong
signal to me. But, yes, the MS generic upgrade provides another choice even in
those cases.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10892 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  12:38:19
Sb: #10618-#MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: David Andrews 76137,1056
To: R J Decker 70320,172 (X)

>An owner of a OEM's value-added DOS running on the OEM equipment should look
to the the OEM's upgrade, if available, as a prime upgrade path.

Unless the hardware has been specially modified.  I had problems with IBM DOS 5
on an IBM AT.  I would give me a error trap that could be corrected with a soft
boot each time I tried to diskcopy a high density 3.5" disk.  I knew it was the
OEM DOS version because under Desqview the disks could be diskcopied with ease.
The AT, it turns out, had an AWARD BIOS.  Switching to MS-DOS 5 fixed the
problem.


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10944 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  17:06:38
Sb: #10892-#MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: David Andrews 76137,1056 (X)

Then, in that situation, you obviously are no longer running OEM equipment are
you?



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10976 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  20:31:24
Sb: #10944-MS VERSUS PC DOS
Fm: David Andrews 76137,1056
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202

>Then, in that situation, you obviously are no longer running OEM equipment are
you?

Depends on your perspective.  If you have a SCSI controller in your IBM AT is
it no longer a IBM AT?  I think not.

The point is that if you have modified the system hardware you might be better
off with the more generic form of the OS.  It really all depends on what and
how much of your machine is "out of origional spec".



#: 9629 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:52:26
Sb: Peachtree Complete III
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: TIM SAWYER 72117,775

Tim,

In most version os DOS 3.3 partitions larger than 32MB were not recognized. In
DOS 4.0x, large partition support was added. So, if you repartition in one of
the later versions, DOS 3.3 will probably not be able to see your partitions.

Nate Boxe, MSDOS section leader



#: 9690 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:12:28
Sb: Peachtree Complete III
Fm: Bryan Nylin 71441,1420
To: TIM SAWYER 72117,775

I have been following the Peachtree thread for a few days now, as well as
looking for info. from a couple local BBS's.  Your problem was not unique.
According to a source on a local BBS who spoke with the President of Peachtree
Software for 45 minutes about the problem (claims he's a software publisher,
also), the word is that Peachtree is aware of 2 problems under DOS 5.0:  the
backup/restore module and the Maintain Company Records module.  They don't work
due to a timing problem with who PT is written and how DOS 5.0 handles file
I/O.  The technical support people are working on a patch which should be
available in 3-5 weeks.
PEACHTREE IS NOT MAKING THIS PUBLICLY KNOWN.  They are only giving information
out on an "as needed" basis over their technical support lines.  The fact that
they are still happily selling it to anybody who will call up and fork over
$298 and not tell them about DOS 5.0 is reprehensible.  I should know, I bought
it 2 weeks ago and have not installed it yet due to these problems.  We'll just
have to see how well their return policy works.


#: 9882 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  23:46:15
Sb: #Peachtree Complete III
Fm: M. Tucker Brawner 73455,1440
To: TIM SAWYER 72117,775

Tim,

Scanning the thread, I can reply that I run PCIII on a DELL 425E w/ 190M
harddrive with a 100 and a 90 partition.  It is in the 90 side. I am on DOS 5.0
and have not seen trouble YET (grin).  I had an abyssmal time getting it to
work when first bought . . . about 3 years ago.  Finally I disabled the xxx87
chip with a batch command and had no further trouble.

Well, not quite, they sent me an update to the checkbook (extra) module which
moved and renamed all my data files without warning.  It took me one hell of a
desperate weekend to figure that out!

I also feel that PT and it's people are reprehensible.  I once upgraded and had
to order new checks . . . "delivered in 30 days".  BS. . .it was FOUR MONTHS
while I wrote my checks BY HAND.  No sympathy from Atlanta though.

Anyway, thought I'd get in my two cents >: )

Tucker exit

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10356 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:24:20
Sb: #9882-#Peachtree Complete III
Fm: brian mullan 72247,1556
To: M. Tucker Brawner 73455,1440 (X)

I've tried the PeachTree under DRDOS v5 with 623K of free mem and had no
problems... I would think that puts the ball into Microsoft's court to explain
your particular problem.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10950 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  17:29:26
Sb: #10356-Peachtree Complete III
Fm: M. Tucker Brawner 73455,1440
To: brian mullan 72247,1556

Brian, I'm sure MSOFT had nothing to do with my problems . . . I lay it all at
the doorsteps of PCIII's people. Good luck w/ your setup. Tucker

#: 10098 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  19:32:00
Sb: #Peachtree Complete III
Fm: DAVID SEAL 70154,2324
To: Bob Luce 72436,3374

I ALSO RUN A 486 WITH PEACHTREE III AND HAD NO PROBLEMSAT ALL USING IT UNDER
DRDOS 5.0,AS SOON AS MSDOS 5.0 WAS INSTALLED ANY TYPE OF BACKUP LOCKED THE
SYSTEM.BOOTING WITH A SYSTEM DISK OF MS 4.01 OR    DRDOS 5.0 FIXES THE
PROBLEM.DOESNT THIS POINT TO MSDOS 5.0 BEING THE PROBLEM???????.I ALSO AM
UNABLE TO CNTRL-ALT-DEL AFTER   EXITING FROM WINDOWS WITH MS 5.0.HELP!!/EXIT

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10355 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:23:01
Sb: #10098-Peachtree Complete III
Fm: brian mullan 72247,1556
To: DAVID SEAL 70154,2324

Msoft folks are trying hard not to admit that their MSDOS v5 has problems! Many
of the Msoft sysop and section leader responses seem to dump any problems users
are having on "the other guys software" being the problem.
   Its funny how many of the msdos v5 "problem" software applications are
having NO PROBLEM running under DRDOS v5.0 and still enjoying the gains of
'high memory' usage leaving their apps 620K ++ memory free.

#: 9630 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:52:33
Sb: Dexxa Mouse 4.1 problem
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: David Cheifetz 70563,562 (X)

David,

There is an upgrade available from Logitech. It's version 5.01. They will, I
think, download it for free if you call them.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9631 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:52:41
Sb: Best Feature: UNINSTALL?
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Brian Marasca 71230,1650

Brian,

What else were you running at the time you tried your application? If you are
loading things high then you are subtracting from your total extended memory
and this will reduce Windows' available memory. What does About Program Manager
in the Help menu in Program Manager say about system resources and free memory?

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9634 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:53:05
Sb: #DAK BSR mouse w/ shell
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Richard Carlson 76605,470 (X)

Richard,

We don't currently know the correct/current version of mouse driver necessary
for DOS 5 compatibility with BSR mice.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9943 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  04:09:57
Sb: #9634-DAK BSR mouse w/ shell
Fm: Richard Carlson 76605,470
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Yes, it's 5.01 for the Logitech driver, according to the responses I've gotten
in the ILink DOSSTIPS conference. Only I don't know where to get it.  Maybe it
isn't legally availavble on public BBSs, since I haven't found it on any. BUT,
I called DAK's support number and they are sending a current mouse driver that
will work with DOS 5 at no extra charge.  -- Can't really complain about DAK
service and support.

#: 9635 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:53:14
Sb: #DOS5.0 and Sysgen Tape
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: maurice ballas 72611,1245 (X)

Maurice,

I'm not sure what version you might need for DOS 5, but you might want to look
at the Fifth Generation section of the PCVENA/B forums. Someone here is
currently using version 2.01 and it works fine with DOS 5.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9794 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  19:48:36
Sb: #9635-DOS5.0 and Sysgen Tape
Fm: maurice ballas 72611,1245
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Dear Nate, I am using Sysgen Reliant Software for Tape Backup on their internal
tape drive for PS/2. I think you may be confusing my note with someone using
Fastback, but I'll look there anyway.
Thanks for your reply.
Maurice



#: 9636 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:53:24
Sb: SMARTDrive and SSTOR.SYS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Eric Gregory 70233,1354 (X)

Eric,

We don't recommend that you use Smartdrive with Speed Store as the device,
SSTOR, provides support for the hard drive and not the ROM BIOS. This is true
for Disk Manager and others. It will work with the /p parameter, but it will
also put your hard drive at risk.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9637 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:53:31
Sb: #1-2-3 v.3.1 problem?
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jeffrey G. Clark 72701,2372 (X)

Jeffrey,

Have you tried it without the expanded memory manager? Lotus 3.1 can allocate
its own expanded/extended memory. There is a problem with Lotus and the NOEMS
switch of EMM386. You shouldn't have any problems with just Himem.sys, but if
you still do, I'd take that out too, as a test.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9955 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  06:40:34
Sb: #9637-#1-2-3 v.3.1 problem?
Fm: Jeffrey G. Clark 72701,2372
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Thanks, Nate, I'll give that a try.
Since I left my questions, I've learned that the problem seems specific to a
machine, not to 5.0.
Thanks again.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9969 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  08:55:51
Sb: #9955-#1-2-3 v.3.1 problem?
Fm: Gene Smith 71221,64
To: Jeffrey G. Clark 72701,2372 (X)

I'm using several (45) Unisys PW2 500/16A's. About half are up on 5.0. Then
only problems I've had are more often related to EMM drivers. CSC Detroit will
tell you only the NEATEMM.SYS driver is recommended/supported by Unisys. They
will also tell you that QEMM is NOT recommended. However, I have found that it
depends on the individual configuration, i.e. What HD is installed, and how
much memory. I found the Adaptech/SCSI drive is the most tolerant and the older
WD/40Meg CDC drives are the least tolerant. Also, if the memory is added on a
add-on card (BOCA RAM), it can cause strange problems. As to 123 3.1, I'm
running a help desk on 2 pw2/500 16A's (1- 3 Meg internal, 105Meg SCSI, VGA)
(2- 3 Meg Internal, 4 Meg BOCA (7 total), 105 Meg Plus XL Card, VGA) and am
supporting 1-2-3 v3.1, 2.3, 2.2, QPro 3.0, Windows 3.0a, AmiPRO, Micrografix
Designer, Pagemaker 4.0, Excel 2.1, Pctools v6, v7, WordPerfect 5.1, dBase
III+, etc. I am even running QEMM-386 v5.13 as my memory manager. I'd look for
a hidden conflict between RM and the hardware.

Gene

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10875 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  10:53:57
Sb: #9969-#1-2-3 v.3.1 problem?
Fm: Jeffrey G. Clark 72701,2372
To: Gene Smith 71221,64 (X)

Thanks, Gene!

Glad to know we're not the only Unisys shop out there. We're even using some of
their newer models (3163, PW800/33, etc.) & we've found some oddities with
memory management too. I was especially amused by your reference to the BOCA
board since we have a PW800/20 on which the FE replaced every component to try
to rid it of gremlins, but it turned out to be the emory board. I've had fair
success with Helix Ram Manager product (RM386.SYS) which comes with NetRoom. It
converts extended to expanded (LIM 4.0) memory on 386 machines & works OK with
Unisys stuff. Helix XLOAD utility does a good job in loading IPX and NETx into
high memory too.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11042 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  08:03:47
Sb: #10875-1-2-3 v.3.1 problem?
Fm: Gene Smith 71221,64
To: Jeffrey G. Clark 72701,2372

Glad to see we're not the Lone Ranger as well. We mostly have 500/16A's and a
few 800/33A's. I can't explain the efects, but it's weird! I have on PW that
the only problem is when QEMM 5.13 is installed, Procomm Plus (1.1A & 2.0) lose
characters. On another, Lotus Allways won't work. When you enter it, the system
locks. Five feet away is an identical machine that works fine. Try calling CSC
with that one! Also, we have around 10 old PW2 500/12's (80286 12 Mhz
Mitusbishi design) that had the old EGC card (EGA Color). These{ will not work
with Lotus WYSIWYG in 2.3. Changing the card fixed many problems. I have a
question: In the BIOS setup, when you are using the RM386, did you move the
384K of shadow to extended? or are you using it as shadow RAM?

Gene

#: 9638 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:53:38
Sb: Dos 5.0 & wordperfet 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Michael  A. Lewis 70253,2716

Michael,

Check the ROM BIOS on both computers and compare their dates.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9639 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:53:47
Sb: SMARTDrive
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Mark R Aronica 72740,3564

Mark,

The only time we recommend forcing Smartdrive to install on a system that has
been partitioned in a non-standard manner is when the ROM BIOS supports this.
In the case of using Disk Manager, it will put your hard drive at risk if you
use Smartdrv. Can you repartition with DOS 5's FDISK?

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9640 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:53:54
Sb: Keyboard Problems-Amdek
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jack Loken 72401,33

Jack,

Try the SWITCHES=/K in your CONFIG.SYS file (and a /K on your device=ansi.sys
line too if you have one). This will remap your keyboard as a conventional
board.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9641 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:54:02
Sb: Phoenix BIOS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Leibel Tennenbaum 72421,2324 (X)

Leibel,

This problem with certain Phoenix BIOS' seems to be also related to the
hardware it's installed in. To my knowledge you shouldn't have any problems
with your current BIOS and DOS 5. If you do, you can always take DOS 5 back for
a refund.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9642 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:54:13
Sb: DOS 5 ON AN 8088
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: JACK STARKMAN 76216,2273 (X)

Jack,

Well, you'd get QBasic, the new editor and online help for DOS commands to name
a few. On an 8088 you will not be able to load devices high, nor will DOS load
high, unless your hardware is designed specially with the ability to use RAM in
the 384K adapter segment area. You'll also get to use the new DOSSHELL which is
quite an improvement on DOS 4's shell, I think.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9704 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:48:11
Sb: DOS 5 ON AN 8088
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: JACK STARKMAN 76216,2273

..and since you indicate that you have the versions of PCT and NU that
specifically support DOS 5, you might be in trouble if you do not upgrade<g>!



#: 9644 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:54:33
Sb: 123R3.1 - no ext memory?
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704 (X)

Roger,

Lotus 123 has a problem with the NOEMS switch and EMM386. When you virtualize
DOS, Lotus looks for the expanded memory that it expects, but finds none. The
work around for this is to use the RAM switch and specify a small amount of
expanded memory. Or, you can stop using EMM386 and just use extended memory for
all your programs, that is, if the loss of conventional memory isn't too
harming.

At this time, there is no fix for this problem. I'm actually waiting for some
more information from Lotus, myself, on this subject. (Mostly we've been
playing phone-tag :-)

Hope this helps some,

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 10209 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  09:54:26
Sb: 123R3.1 - no ext memory?
Fm: Robert D. Chapman 73770,2231
To: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704 (X)

Roger...
   I had the same problem, and the same error message, with my ZEOS 386SX
(4096K of memory).  In addition, the Turbo Pascal "Big Command
Line" Compiler TPCX gave me error messages.  I have simply given up on EMM386,
and so far everything is working OK.  In particular 1-2-3R3.1 works the same as
it did on MS-DOS V4.01, and TPCX is functioning.

Bob Chapman

#: 10222 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  10:34:45
Sb: #123R3.1 - no ext memory?
Fm: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474
To: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704 (X)

Roger, I'm running Lotus 2.2, so I really can't help.  I don't have any
problems running 123 with HIMEM.SYS.  But I'm using a BOCA memory manager *and*
QRAM, and the latter knocks out *all* exPANded memory in order to load my
drivers, etc., in high memoryu.  But 123 still runs... it just doesn't have any
expanded memory.  I don't understand your problem.  Seems to me, if you *have*
exTENded memory then 123 3.1 should be able to use it.  What else ya got in
there? Howard

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10340 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  14:19:07
Sb: #10222-#123R3.1 - no ext memory?
Fm: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704
To: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474 (X)

Howard, the gurus at Lotus and at Microsoft have confirmed that there are
compatibility problems with 1-2-3 release 3.x - under certain
conditions/configurations only. Unfortunately my preferred configuration
happened to be one of the problem areas, so I will just have to work around it
until a solution is developed.

If you really want to know more, look at msg 24199 of 03 July in section 3 of
the LotusA forum, and msg 9644 in section 4 of this forum - actually the latter
is part of this thread.   Thanks for the reply, however.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 11023 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  06:53:11
Sb: #10340-123R3.1 - no ext memory?
Fm: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474
To: ROGER LEWIS 72427,1704

Roger, I'm using 2.2, not 3.x.  Thanks anyway. Howard

#: 9645 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:54:43
Sb: #Q-DOS & DIR MAGIC
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: MIKE GREEN 71240,1130 (X)

Mike,

Not specifically, but in any program that directly enhances/modifies the
operating system, if you change that OS, then you'll probably have to change
the secondary programs too.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9743 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  16:49:00
Sb: #9645-Q-DOS & DIR MAGIC
Fm: Eric J. Marang 72647,1742
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Hi Nate,

I just upgraded to Dos 5.0 and found the same thing with QDos II.

It won't work with DOS5.0, however, the new QDos III will and is much better.
Lots of new stuff.  I found it much better than QD2.. Telemart had it for $42 I
think.

Best regards,

Eric




#: 9963 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  07:51:36
Sb: #Q-DOS & DIR MAGIC
Fm: Bob Reagan 75236,1430
To: MIKE GREEN 71240,1130

Mike,

I use QDos fine with DOS 5.0.  Do you have FASTOPEN installed?  I don't.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10324 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  13:11:35
Sb: #9963-#Q-DOS & DIR MAGIC
Fm: James E. Goodman 71510,2056
To: Bob Reagan 75236,1430 (X)

Mike,

I tried using setver string to trick QDOSII back to DOS 3.30 but no luck. What
is your secret to success???



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10611 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  05:41:34
Sb: #10324-#Q-DOS & DIR MAGIC
Fm: Bob Reagan 75236,1430
To: James E. Goodman 71510,2056 (X)

James,

No secret.  I didn't do anything to trick QD2.  It worked fine with no
adjustments at all.

Have you tried booting clean - no TSR's, device drivers, nothing?




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10697 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  14:45:16
Sb: #10611-Q-DOS & DIR MAGIC
Fm: James E. Goodman 71510,2056
To: Bob Reagan 75236,1430 (X)

No clean boot-up. Enough Paranoia hoping exisitng programs
still run under 5.0.  Already Miss QDII a lot. Dosshell
doesn't give me half the options as easily accessible.
Thanks anyway, I'll keep watching this area for a cure.

Jim


#: 9647 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:55:02
Sb: #FORMAT problems
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Richard Carlson 76605,470 (X)

Richard,

What you need to do is use DRIVER.SYS, not DRIVPARM which is designed for
external drives only.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9944 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  04:12:45
Sb: #9647-FORMAT problems
Fm: Richard Carlson 76605,470
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

It's moot now since I found the culprit to be my AST memory management
software, but Gary seems to have been right about DRIVPARM since they Microsoft
technician tried that fix in my hour long phone conversation with her.

#: 9650 S8/BASIC Conversions
    03-Jul-91  11:55:25
Sb: QBasic
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Scott Gurvey 70040,156 (X)

Scott,

There are two books available from MS-Press. One is called "Learn Basic Now"
and the other is "QBasic" something, sorry I forgot. The online help for QBasic
is pretty exhaustive. You will be able to find an explanation and example of
every command under Help. You will also be able to find things like the
graphics modes and error messages in Help.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 10287 S8/BASIC Conversions
    05-Jul-91  11:47:35
Sb: QBasic
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Gary E. Ashford 76010,1377 (X)

Gary,

Actually, the documentation for GW-Basic won't cover the new features of
QBasic. It's basically up to you to search through the online help which is
pretty exhaustive in its coverage of commands. There are a few books out on
QBasic also.

And, once you are converted to QBasic you'll probably want a compiler and more
features <g> -  QuickBasic.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9651 S8/BASIC Conversions
    03-Jul-91  11:55:35
Sb: BASICA HELP!
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Stu Finnigan/Canada 72647,702

Stu,

I know that in GWBASIC the syntax is: SAVE "filename",A

This SHOULD work for BASICA.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9652 S10/Developers Exchange
    03-Jul-91  11:55:42
Sb: XMS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: David Masaki 73677,2115 (X)

David,

It's available from MS-Customer Service: 800 426-9400.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9653 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  11:55:50
Sb: Using multiple UMBs
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Ken Ross 76366,3214 (X)

Ken,

Some TSRs and even Mouse drivers will expand when they load. Their actual size
in memory may be much larger than the size on disk. Basically, since they
expect to be loaded in the bottom of conventional memory they know that they
can reach up a few K or as much as they need for a scratch pad or whatnot. Or,
their initial size may include modules that are later stipped off, so that when
you see their size in conventional memory, it may seem small enough to fit into
a UMB, but it won't load high.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9654 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  11:55:59
Sb: #GRAPHICS Problem On 5.0
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Vic Mayper 73250,1610 (X)

Vic,

Do you have this problem when you do a print-screen of just text? Does your HP
emulate another printer? If so, then you might want to configure it that way
and then use another GRAPHICS type. If that doesn't work, and you've tried all
the types, I'd call HP.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10141 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  00:50:08
Sb: #9654-#GRAPHICS Problem On 5.0
Fm: Harry Henderson 76136,3107
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I have had a similar problem with DOS 5.0 and an LJ IIP. (I also happen to have
an AMI BIOS, but it would surprise me that with all the testing Microsoft did
they didn't have plenty of beta testers with AMI bioses...) I've posted on HP
forum but they don't seem to know anything either.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10372 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  16:26:36
Sb: #10141-#GRAPHICS Problem On 5.0
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Harry Henderson 76136,3107 (X)

Microsoft has tested with a lot of AMI BIOS's (I'm using a Northgate with an
AMI bios right now).  The problem is that BIOS's change often (sometimes
weekly).  It is quite possible for a BIOS bug to get shipped in hardware, then
fixed the next week.  Many times, users will never experience the problem (DOS
has work arounds for a lot of BIOS problems).

We use a lot of HP Laserjet IIp's at Microsoft, many connected to machines with
AMI BIOS's) and we have no known problems with them. This is not to say that we
happen to have the specific version of the AMI BIOS you have (which week was it
made?).

Eric (Microsoft).



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10762 S3/Hardware Issues
    06-Jul-91  21:40:17
Sb: #10372-#GRAPHICS Problem On 5.0
Fm: Harry Henderson 76136,3107
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

I don't know how I could tell the week but I'll check for the month and year
next time I boot. I think it was something like May 1990. I understand your
point about not being able to test every BIOS, but would wonder whether it's a
good idea to be so dependant on the BIOS for something like sending the screen
to a printer. Anyway, maybe more people will report in and you'll be able to
get an idea of the extent of the problem. Thanks for your response.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11065 S3/Hardware Issues
    08-Jul-91  09:45:34
Sb: #10762-GRAPHICS Problem On 5.0
Fm: Vic Mayper 73250,1610
To: Harry Henderson 76136,3107

We seem to have similar BIOS dates -- mine is 4-30-90, according to a later
part of the boot display.  (does your boot display or Setup data show an exact
date?)  Also, my problem is only with GRAPHICS; Print Screen works fine with
text.

Re Nate's other comments:  The Laserjet III handles only PCL and HPGL (no other
built-in emulations).  There is no GRAPHICS parameter for HPGL output (at least
in the DOS 5.0 manual), so the only parameters that could work would be
HPDEFAULT, LASERJET, and LASERJETII.  jAll three of these failed in the same
way.  HP's support people didn't have any suggestions, except changing the
software.

#: 9655 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  11:56:09
Sb: Can't find mouse
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jim Phelps 76646,416 (X)

Jim,

Sounds like the Mouse driver isn't loading. Does your mouse work in other
applications? Have you checked your autoexec.bat and the appropriate
subdirectory to see if they agree? If you have a COM2 then switch it and see if
that helps.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9718 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:26:26
Sb: #Can't find mouse
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jim Phelps 76646,416 (X)

Jim,

Are you trying to load the mouse driver high? If so, try loading it low. The
only other thing I can think of is a bad port.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9730 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  16:01:26
Sb: #9718-#Can't find mouse
Fm: Jim Phelps 76646,416
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Wierd things are going on. I suspected a defective mouse but a new one that
works on another system did not help. I suspected a bad port.  The mouse was on
COM1 so I moved it to COM2.  It worked. I then installed the external modem
that had been on COM2 on COM1.  It works. Both the modem and mouse now work but
the "Why" of the fix eludes me. Thanks for your help.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9986 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  09:41:34
Sb: #9730-Can't find mouse
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Jim Phelps 76646,416 (X)

You got one of the mice that likes 2's.  Microsoft makes every 1000th mouse
that way so that users will have a use for COM2.  [Just kidding :-)]




#: 9656 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:56:19
Sb: #Windowed dos prompt
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

Scott,

Have you tried EMMEXCLUDE? With all your adapters you may be experiencing
several Upper Memory Block conflicts, especially if you load things high and
Windows goes in there and maps LIM 4.0 memory in the UMBs. (Try putting
EMMEXCLUDE=A000-EFFF in your SYSTEM.INI file in the [386enh] section.) With all
your stuff, it may be as simple as an interrupt conflict. I would also try
booting with just QEMM (or just HIMEM.SYS) and seeing if you get the same
problem without all the loadhi's and device drivers.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 11022 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  06:52:35
Sb: #9656-Windowed dos prompt
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate,

Will give the EMMEXCLUDE a try!  I think I do have it in there, but only to
exclude the portion of memory used by my scsi drive.

I'll mark it all as "hands off" for Windows and see what happends.

Thanks, Scott

#: 9657 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:56:32
Sb: #READ THIS: 5.0 and UNIX
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Scott Evernden 73116,3451 (X)

Scott,

It's not unreasonable, however...  Smartdrive expects (and is designed this
way) standard partitions. It deals intimately with your hard drive in all your
disk operations. If it makes a mistake, it's going to affect your hard drive,
which is more dangerous than simply locking your computer.

Sure, it would be possible to make Smartdrive recognize other partitioning
schemes, but: 1st, it would increase the size of Smartdrive tremendously, and
2nd, there would always be partitioning schemes that we wouldn't be able to
predict. MS-DOS is designed to be reliable and support standard configurations
so that for the majority of systems, you will have a stable system. You can get
an alternative hard disk cache, but it too will not work on every system.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10246 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:15:01
Sb: #9657-#READ THIS: 5.0 and UNIX
Fm: Scott Evernden 73116,3451
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I don't get it.  Smartdrive used to work just fine with my Unix/Dos partitioned
disk.  Then 5.0 arrives and SmartDrive stops working because a Unix partition
is now a problem?  It seems pretty simple to me that SmartDrive see that the
partition is not marked as a DOS partition and simply ignore it.  It's not a
DOS partition- ignore it. Otherwise, why don't you document the /P switch and
explain exactly what it means to use it.  I'm using it right now, and I don't
understand the repercussions of doing so.  Maybe a short blurb to explain its
use?

-scott

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10380 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  16:27:40
Sb: #10246-READ THIS: 5.0 and UNIX
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Scott Evernden 73116,3451

Scott - the /P switch says "disable foreign problematic partition checking".
Smartdrv was modified to check for foreign partition schemes (such as disk
manager) which may conflict with smartdrv.  This was done to avoid data loss
problems which can happen when Smartdrv is used with these partioning schemes
(Disk manager sets up a non-dos partition, then tricks DOS into using it - this
is how it blows up with smartdrv; Ignoring non-DOS partitions is what smartdrv
used to do - we had some very unhappy customers when their Disk Manager
partiton got trashed).

Unfortunately, some UNIX partitions look like one of the conflicting 3-rd party
partitioning schemes and thus are mis-matched.  If you are truly not using the
partion under DOS, you will be OK with the /P switch.

Eric (Microsoft).





#: 9658 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:56:41
Sb: MS-Dos 5.0 / 123R3
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Fred N. Bush 72327,200 (X)

Fred,

It is most likely a conflict with EMM386. Are you using the NOEMS switch? Try
the RAM switch.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9659 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:56:45
Sb: #Hyundai 286C compat?
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Richard Carlson 76605,470 (X)

Richard,

Do you still have trouble when you boot with no Autoexec.bat or Config.sys?

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9945 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  04:15:55
Sb: #9659-Hyundai 286C compat?
Fm: Richard Carlson 76605,470
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Gee, I wish I'd gotten that one before I called Microsoft.  We finally had to
go down to a minimal config.sys and the thing worked.  Then it was just a
matter of proceeding like an allergist or a detective, challenging the system.
It turned out that my AST extended memory managers were the guilty parties.

#: 9660 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:56:53
Sb: Brand Specific DOS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Steve Erlitz 71546,101

Steve,

As long as they are all later than 2.11 they should upgrade nicely.


Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9661 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:57:02
Sb: #MSDOS 5.0 Compat. Problm
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: John N. Ayres 72357,507 (X)

John,

You might want to look into getting a BIOS upgrade. But, basically it does seem
that your hardware might be incompatible with DOS 5. However, if you booted
successfully off of the UNINSTALL disk, then you did have DOS 5 briefly. When
you booted off of your working disks, did it have any Autoexec.bat or
Config.sys at all? What sort of drivers did you have on your computer previous
to the upgrade? Accidentally excluding a necessary driver might prove fatal.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9768 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  18:06:14
Sb: #9661-MSDOS 5.0 Compat. Problm
Fm: John N. Ayres 72357,507
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate,

It is a funny thing, but if an autoexec file is introduced on the boot disk
then the instructions in that file will be executed.  It is only when you get
to the C: prompt (after the batch runs to termination) that the machine freezes
up.  Device=Ansi.Sys, Files=20, Buffers=20, is the CONFIG.SYS.

I tried to install 4.01 on it a couple of years ago and although I can't
remember the details the effort was definitely unsuccessful.  It is probably
the ancient BIOS and at this point in time new BIOS chips at something like $50
are probably worth more than the machine will be after the chips are installed
<grin>.

Thanks for the suggestions, nevertheless.               * John



#: 9662 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:57:11
Sb: Sidekick Problem
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: dean 73727,3052 (X)

Dean,

Have you tried running Sidekick on a clean configuration, i.e. booting without
autoexec.bat or config.sys files? Are you loading Sidekick hig? Try loading it
low.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9663 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  11:57:19
Sb: Lost cursor
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Tom Thompson 76424,3163 (X)

Tom,

With the NOEMS switch and nothing loaded high, do you get the same problem? If
you are positively sure that the only way you are going to be able to use
EMM386 is with the RAM switch, try using P0=, which will only devote 16k to the
pageframe, as opposed to the default of 64k. This problem might be caused by
the TSR or device you are loading high too.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9664 S10/Developers Exchange
    03-Jul-91  11:57:28
Sb: #Too Much Memory Free
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474 (X)

Howard,

LOADFIX is mentioned in the README.TXT. It is on your upgrade disks and
probably in your current DOS directory. It simply loads programs above the 64K
line. (Some programs drown when they suddenly find themselves lower than they
expected, i.e. below the first 64K of conventional memory.)

For example, to load a mouse driver that you suspect is having trouble by being
loaded too low:

LOADFIX MOUSE

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10232 S10/Developers Exchange
    05-Jul-91  10:51:15
Sb: #9664-Too Much Memory Free
Fm: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Thanks, Nate.  I checked it out with LOADFIX /? and, fortunately, have no need
of it...YET! Howard

#: 10227 S10/Developers Exchange
    05-Jul-91  10:39:42
Sb: #Too Much Memory Free
Fm: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474
To: Mark Newton 70007,3154 (X)

Mark, that's what I did...LOADFIX /?...and I got the message.  Seems to be for
corrupted files only.  I'm surprised (or shouldn't I be?) that Microsoft
doesn't mention it in the User's Guide. Howard

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10602 S10/Developers Exchange
    06-Jul-91  02:05:58
Sb: #10227-#Too Much Memory Free
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474 (X)

Isn't it *wonderful* how that help feature works?  It's just like having the
manual online.  If it is an external dos command then there is a help screen
for it......




Dev



There are 2 Replies.

#: 11028 S10/Developers Exchange
    08-Jul-91  07:09:43
Sb: #10602-Too Much Memory Free
Fm: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Dev, look around.  *Many* programs have had /? or /H switches for getting the
proper syntax for COM and EXE files for *years*.  Some (like PKZIP, PKUNZIP,
etc.) you just enter the command with *no* parameters.  DOS is late to this
one.  And if you really want a *good* DOS HELP file, look at 4DOS's HELP.EXE.
It's much better than Norton's NDOS Help. Howard

#: 11059 S10/Developers Exchange
    08-Jul-91  09:31:29
Sb: #10602-Too Much Memory Free
Fm: Dennis Williamson 73260,350
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200

The _internal_ DOS commands do /? now, too.  And user programs can be added to
the DOSHELP.HLP file so that they work with "HELP program" (which calls
"program /?"), assuming that the program has /? capability (some don't but act
like they do because they respond to unrecognized parameters with either a help
message or a "usage:" message).

Dennis



#: 9665 S10/Developers Exchange
    03-Jul-91  11:57:35
Sb: #How to use XMS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Phil Petree 76704,31 (X)

Phil,

You can get the XMS specs from MS-Customer Service at 800 426-9400. Some
reference books too will include sections on making XMS calls.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10929 S10/Developers Exchange
    07-Jul-91  15:34:35
Sb: #9665-How to use XMS
Fm: Phil Petree 76704,31
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

MS charges for the information.  I'm sure I can find it on CSERVE somewhere.

Thanks though.



#: 9666 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  12:05:22
Sb: #BATCH FILE PROBLEMS
Fm: Leslie Martin 70253,1454
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

>>CIS editor mangled it.<<  Ouch, that must hurt.

Actually, I vaguely recall reading somewhere about formated and unformated
messages but I did not exactly comprehend the appropriate uses and times for
usage and I had forgotten about it.  Now I probably could not find it.

Um, regarding my batch file problem.....I, um, (Oh, this is so
em*BAR*assing!!)....I worked on that problem for probably 2-3 hours, I editted
the batch files down to nothing but an echo statement, I reinstalled DOS, I
compared COMMAND.COM, IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS to the origionals for coruption, I
checked for viruses, I ran a diagnostic on the hardware, I did just about
everything except take the system apart physically. Can you guess what the
problem was? Somehow two old batch files with the same names but incorrect
directorys on no longer exsistant drives slipped into my DOS directory and THAT
was what  was running.  I have no idea how they got there nor, for that matter,
where they came from.  I think the thing that threw me off the most was that
after I had installed DOS 5 these batch files *did* work, then didn't.

I feel pretty stupid over this one.  I *should* have suspected something simple
like that but I had visions of a DOS 4.00 fiasco.  ****SORRY****





There is 1 Reply.

#: 9687 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  13:26:36
Sb: #9666-BATCH FILE PROBLEMS
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Leslie Martin 70253,1454 (X)

Leslie:  No problem, glad you found out what was happening.

 - Legare




#: 9917 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:48:21
Sb: #BATCH FILE PROBLEMS
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Leslie Martin 70253,1454 (X)

Leslie,

Have you run this with the echo off so you can tell which lines are generating
which messages?  I just ran the exact file you gave me without difficulty.
Also, are you running these files from a Command Prompt from within the
DOSSHELL?  If so, you may be running out of environment space.

If these suggestions don't help, please post your CONFIG.SYS file as well as
information about your hardware.

Thanks,

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10337 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  14:11:17
Sb: #9917-#BATCH FILE PROBLEMS
Fm: Leslie Martin 70253,1454
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd,

If you were running the batch file I included in my earlier message then, as it
turns out, you were not running the batch file I was running and neither was I.
After about two hours of doing every diognostic test I could think of I
discovered that the trouble I was having was due to two batch files with
identical names but invalid commands (read "outdated drive and directory
specifications") that had somehow cropped up in my DOS directory. I am still
not sure how they got there; To the best of my recollection I had not moved or
copied any batch files just prior to the problem beginning. But I obviously did
something.  I just could not find it and I was afraid of a buggy COMMAND.COM or
such.

Thanks for the help.  And sorry about the panic.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10992 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  23:15:23
Sb: #10337-BATCH FILE PROBLEMS
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Leslie Martin 70253,1454

Leslie,

Thanks much for reporting the solution--I was actually pretty sure that there
was something unusual going on, because I had the identical file running fine.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9667 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  12:05:35
Sb: APPEND & PATH PROBLEM
Fm: Leslie Martin 70253,1454
To: STEVEN CLAWSON 76247,1175 (X)

Steve,

I will save your note and give your suggestions a try shortly.  But given a
recent unpleasantness with batch files, which I thought to be a problem with
DOS 5 but was in fact the overlooked presence of a second batch file (I would
like to catagorically deny all responsability for that problem.  It *was* my
responsibility but I would still like to deny it) I want to go thru my system
again and make sure I have not overlooked anything.  I am sure I haven't but I
have been known to be wrong at least once before....And if it *is* a problem
with the new append file (that is what I would like to blame it on) maybe
Microsoft will have a bug fix available by then.  Either way, I will let you
know how things come out on this end.



#: 9668 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  12:24:38
Sb: #KEY-FAKE on DOS 5
Fm: Ed Kent 74000,1252
To: Eric B. DeWitt 75025,1153 (X)

Eric, It is on PC Mag Net and is called KEYFAK.ZIP Ed....

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11027 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  07:05:02
Sb: #9668-KEY-FAKE on DOS 5
Fm: Eric B. DeWitt 75025,1153
To: Ed Kent 74000,1252

Wich forum and section. I looked un utilforum but didn't find it?

    Eric





#: 9669 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  12:36:24
Sb: #Large Partitions/DOS5.0
Fm: Steven Myerow 74020,1555
To: ALL

I am upgrading from my current PC using DOS 3.3 to a new system with DOS5.0. If
I make partitions on the new system's hard drive > 32 MB in size, am I at risk
that some older programs will not work on the new system? If so, will they
corrupt the disk? Thanks for your responses?

Steve Myerow

There are 2 Replies.

#: 9691 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  14:14:05
Sb: #9669-Large Partitions/DOS5.0
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Steven Myerow 74020,1555 (X)

Steven:  Yes, some older programs might have some problems.  Primarily any
program that does direct disk i/o using INT 25h and 26h.  There are not a lot
that do that.  Primarily things like Norton Utilities, disk cache programs,
etc.  I have not heard of any of these programs doing any damage to the disk,
they just fail.  There are upgrades available for most of them that will work
with the larger partitions.

Just one additional word which you may already know.  If you make a partiton
greater than 128 meg, you cluster size will go from 2kb to 4kb, and you will
waste a lot of disk space in small files.  You are better off with multiple
partitions than with one partition larger than 128 meg.

 - Legare




#: 10152 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  06:09:06
Sb: #9669-Large Partitions/DOS5.0
Fm: David Pipe 71511,2162
To: Steven Myerow 74020,1555 (X)

Only a few *very old* disk utilities won't work.  For example, Norton 4.0 (over
two years old, and two revisions old) won't work, and the old spinrite won't
work.  Otherwise, don't even give it a thought.   I've been running 100 meg
partitions for over 2.5 years with zero problems.

#: 9673 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  12:59:27
Sb: #DEVICEHIGH & IPX.COM
Fm: Michael J. Yusko 70304,2512
To: James Sullivan 76530,1457 (X)

The IPX driver will not work with emm386 noems or ram option. Novell did load a
new IPX and some net ...netx drivers but the IPX failed and has been removed.
You may want to check back on NDD sometime.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10161 S5/Networks
    05-Jul-91  06:59:16
Sb: #9673-DEVICEHIGH & IPX.COM
Fm: James Sullivan 76530,1457
To: Michael J. Yusko 70304,2512

Thanks.  I'll keep an eye out.

#: 9813 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  20:30:22
Sb: DEVICEHIGH & IPX.COM
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Michael Faulkner 70007,4711

Make sure that you have an x=yyyy-zzzz where yyyy is the beginning memory
address & zzzz is the ending memory address for the address range that arcnet
card is configured to use.....


Dev the Diligent




#: 11018 S5/Networks
    08-Jul-91  06:31:18
Sb: #DEVICEHIGH & IPX.COM
Fm: Phil Karnoff 75360,615
To: James Sullivan 76530,1457 (X)

James, My config.sys looks like this: DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOEMS DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\ANSI.SYS SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM /E:5130 /P FILES=60 BUFFERS=20

Ou I can load both IPX and NET5 high without a problem.  The command that I use
is : LH IPX LH NET5

As for Windows and the EMM386 driver, you only need to use the RAM switch if
your Windows applications need expanded memory.  My applications do not, and I
don't have a problem running Windows.

Hope this helps.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11082 S5/Networks
    08-Jul-91  12:10:25
Sb: #11018-DEVICEHIGH & IPX.COM
Fm: James Sullivan 76530,1457
To: Phil Karnoff 75360,615 (X)

I'll give it a try.  Thanks! James Sullivan

#: 9674 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  13:08:04
Sb: 5.0 Upgrade from PC-DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: R J Decker 70320,172 (X)

This must have been for someone else...I knew all that!  What I have found out
in the mean time is that if I was willing to pay IBM the upgrade price ($85),
and send them an old title page (of which I have three) I could have a "normal"
copy of DOS for the price of the upgrade...I do not think MS has that option!



#: 9699 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  14:47:32
Sb: 5.0 Upgrade from PC-DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: R J Decker 70320,172 (X)

Ah my memory is clearer...the procedure that I described was for the benefit of
those that cannot use the "upgrade" packages.  For IBM'ers, this means the old
DOSes and dual-floppy systems.  They made the basic assumption (apparently)
that the vast majority of the people that would purchase this upgrade would be
placing it on machines with Fixed Disks, and did not include a fully optioned
install program.  Also as Todd mentioned, you can do it the old fashioned way
with any of the packages...



#: 9675 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:12:44
Sb: Screen fonts gone
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Chuck Bertolino 70022,1353 (X)

Have you posed your question to the font-savvy folks in the winword section of
the MICROSOFT Applications Forum(GO MSAPPS)?

Check to make sure that Windows itself is operating correctly and that you
still have your fonts in Windows accessories.....

Dev the Dedicated



#: 9676 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:12:50
Sb: Old DOS removal
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Kenneth Green 72617,562 (X)

If DOS 5.0 is already in there and working, then yes delete those files!! If is
not, install dos 5, and it will take care of overwriting the boot sector.  If
your situation requires you to use the sys command, you will be happy to know
that SYS now moves files out of its way and copies them to another part of the
disk.  Hope this answers your question.....


Dev the Dedicated




#: 9677 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:12:58
Sb: #Dos 5 problems
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Ira Sutton 76177,2623 (X)

1. You will probably have to make adjustments to Qemm to get your speed back
up. Look into a caching program that is compatible w/ qemm. Refer to the PC
vendor forum, section 1(GO PCVENB) for more info on qemm

2. What syntax are you using? What is the EXACT error message?

3. TSR compatibility will depend on the version and type of TSR.  Check with
tsr author for more compatibility info.

It is fine to use dos=high with qemm.  That should present no problem.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9802 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:15:59
Sb: #9677-Dos 5 problems
Fm: Ira Sutton 76177,2623
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Thanks for yopur help, I'll check out your suggestions.

#: 9678 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:13:10
Sb: #Setup vs hard disk
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Tim Comstock 71330,3361 (X)

How did you manage to create multiple logical drives within a primary dos
partition??  I would definitely repartition down to one logical drive. Install
to floppies first. Then boot from dos 5 startup disk and use dos 5 FDISK
command to repartiton.  Make sure that you have only one logical drive in your
primary dos partition(FDISK shouldn't allow you to make more than one anyway).
You can have more if you want in an EXTENDED DOS partition. You can then use
the format c: /s for your primary partition and format [drivename]: for the
rest of your logical drives. After that, create your dos directory and copy the
contents of all of the DOS5 floppies that you created to your dos directory.
Reboot and you're all set.  Hope this helps.

Dev the Dedicated



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10446 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  20:46:48
Sb: #9678-Setup vs hard disk
Fm: Tim Comstock 71330,3361
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Sorry for the error. It was one primary partition and an extended partition
with the logical drives.  I will try your idea and let you know what happens.

Tim Comstock

#: 9679 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:13:20
Sb: SHARE with big disks
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Lee Rhodes 76430,1300 (X)

Yes, you should have it for a drive that size with 4.01.  Place it at the top
of your autoexec.bat file.....


Dev the Diligent




#: 9680 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:13:28
Sb: #386/25 4MB Set-up
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Fred Milman 74756,1071 (X)

To optimize your system after setup will require experimemntation by you. What
the right setup will be is really going to depend on your needs.  To the
specific thing that you asked about emm386, just be sure to use the ram
parameter of emm386.  You may need to adjust the parameters in Lotus to avoid
memory problems.

Dev the Dedicated



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9731 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  16:12:06
Sb: #9680-#386/25 4MB Set-up
Fm: Fred Milman 74756,1071
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Dev,

I understand some experimentation is going to be done, especially with loading
everything possible in upper memory.

I guess my real question concerns the division of the 4MB total memory.  For
example, I currently allocate 1MB with EMM386 to expanded, and use 2MB for
Smartdrv.sys as follows:

       DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
       DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE 1024 RAM
       DOS=HIGH,UMB
       DEVICE=C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.SYS 2048 512

Does this sound reasonable? or even smart??

And, should I move Smartdrv high with the DEVICEHIGH Command, assuming there's
room for it after LH Mouse?

It would be considerably easier for all of us, if there were model Autoexec and
Config files available for inspection that include very basic setups
(disregarding the esoteric needs of specific programs) at different RAM levels,
eg. 1, 2, 4, 8MB, with and without WINDOWS 3.0 or QEMM.

Thanks for your help

Fred the Inept



There are 2 Replies.

#: 9996 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  10:21:10
Sb: #9731-386/25 4MB Set-up
Fm: Lenny Leedy 74166,51
To: Fred Milman 74756,1071 (X)

I like your idea about the sample files for the basics such as Windows etc

Lenny




#: 10539 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:57:18
Sb: #9731-386/25 4MB Set-up
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Fred Milman 74756,1071 (X)

That is an interesting notion.  I will check it out with the powers that be and
get back to you on Monday.  How does that sound?

If you plan on using windows at all, no.  Drop that smartdrv.sys down to 1024
or even 760, leave the second parameter as 512, though.  Performance
enhancements are good, but I personally like to leave room for the ten or so
apps, that I get cruisin' in 386 enhanced mode of win3.  I load my smartdrv
high with no problems.  Give  it a whirl.....


Dev



#: 9681 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:13:37
Sb: DOS 5.0 Install
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Fred N. Bush 72327,200 (X)

Do you have the coorect version of emm.sys?  Check with Intel to see if you
need an updated driver.  Before you do that, define the path to your device
drivers in the config.sys file. Make sure that the old dmdrvr.bin file is gone
andincreas file size to 40.  Let me know if that  helps.....




#: 9682 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:13:44
Sb: MS-DOS5/WIN 3
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Jon Yiesla 75226,1073 (X)

Yes, you do need a page frameavailable for win3 to emulate expanded memory. If
you have dos apps that need to use ems, it won't matter whether they are run in
dos or win3, you will still need that parameter.  If you don't, and then run
these apps in win3, they MAY hang.  They may not also......


Dev the Diligent





#: 9683 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:13:55
Sb: #SETUP Won't Work
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Robin Miller 71301,1216 (X)

Has the disk ever been formatted? PRE-DOS 4, it was not necessary to have a
formatted disk for dos to be able to use it.

You could do a manual install.  Install to floppies.  Use dos 5 startup
diskette that you create to boot dos 5.00 on your dad's machine.  Use sys c: to
transfer system files and command.com to the hard drive.  Copy all the contents
of the diskettes to your dos directory after deleting its old contents.  You're
set, but one caveat.  The only way to uninstall is to reinstall the old version
of dos.....

Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9727 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  15:45:34
Sb: #9683-#SETUP Won't Work
Fm: Robin Miller 71301,1216
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

CDS-

Thanks to your response about why DOS 5 won't install on my Dad's computer.
You suggest a manual install, installing to floppies.  Yo advise to "use sys C:
to transfer syatem files and command.com to the hard drive."  What do you mean
by "use sys C:"?  Then, do the system files and command.com get copied to the
DOS directory?  When do I delete the old (3.3) DOS files--before installing 5.0
or after?

Please pardon my lack of erudition here; I really appreciate your help.

Robin

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10540 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:57:26
Sb: #9727-#SETUP Won't Work
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Robin Miller 71301,1216 (X)

No prob, Rob[sorry, I couldn't resist that]!!

The command to transfer system files is exactly:  sys c:

That should result in a message from dos saying, "System transferred".  It will
copy the system files & COMMAND.COM to the root directory.  Delete the contents
of your dos directory before you copy the new ones into it.....

Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10751 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  20:31:06
Sb: #10540-SETUP Won't Work
Fm: Robin Miller 71301,1216
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Thanks, Dev--Will give it a try!

Robin

#: 9685 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  13:14:14
Sb: #INSTALL DRIVE PROBLEM
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Bob Hummer 76137,1656 (X)

I am going to assume from the heat of your flame that you are having difficulty
installing DOS5 with the upgrade product.

Have you just tried to copy all the files from the diskettes to your hard disk
in a temporary directory(TEMP;just a suggestion, any name will do). When that
is done go to that directory and type  "setup".  I hope this alleviates your
problem.  Let us know if it does not.

Dev the Diligent




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10322 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  13:09:01
Sb: #9685-INSTALL DRIVE PROBLEM
Fm: Bob Hummer 76137,1656
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Dev the Diligent:

I liked your reply, Dev. I successfully used the temporary directory ploy,
although it required a major effort to free up enough space for 3 720k disks of
DOS files plus 2.8 megs of installed DOS. Running DOS 5 put out the flames from
the installation - it's nice product.

- Bob



#: 9688 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  13:43:47
Sb: #Prob DOS5-Novell ELSII
Fm: michael miller 76130,1734
To: ALL

I'm having trouble using DOS 5 on a Novell ELSII 2.15b Rev A small network.
Server is 386/20, 6MB RAM, Dedicated.  Workstations are 386/SX/16, 2MB RAM,
40MB Hard disks (all of them). I installed DOS 5 on a workstation/PC and used
it to generate the OS and the sshell. I loaded the OS on the server and it
booted OK.  I tried to use userdef and it wouldn't load.  I tried to assign
trustee rites with syscon for a user and it wouldn't show the path, ie. in
lookup help, it wouldn't show the FS1 name, nor any of its dirs. When I
reloaded dos 3.3, those two utilities worked ok.  Also the network is not
printing.  The print jobs are being stacked in the queue but not coming out to
the printer.  Everything is hooked up and on line. Are there any problems you
are aware of on your end for ELSII 2.15b Rev A as to making the program behave
funny?  [Michael]

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10554 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  01:59:24
Sb: #9688-#Prob DOS5-Novell ELSII
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: michael miller 76130,1734 (X)

Do you have the updated ipx and net5?




Dev



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10888 S5/Networks
    07-Jul-91  12:28:24
Sb: #10554-Prob DOS5-Novell ELSII
Fm: michael miller 76130,1734
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

I used the net 5 from MS disks but I didn't use the ipx as I thought it was for
use with the shell and high memory stuff.  Confusing when to use what with
whom.



#: 10935 S5/Networks
    07-Jul-91  16:21:49
Sb: #10554-Prob DOS5-Novell ELSII
Fm: michael miller 76130,1734
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Devlin, I used the net5 that came with DOS 5 but I didn't use the ipx as I
thought it was only supposed to be used with DOSSHELL and XMS or EMSNET.  I
wasn't using those, so I didn't use the ipx.  Also, as noted previously, at
least two of my utilities (SYSCON & USERDEF) didn't work properly under DOS 5,
but they did under DOS 3.3.

I also will be standardizing on MS Windows on Novell as soon as I'm finished
setting up the network for all other apps.  Since there's so much confusion,
and NOONE can tell me what to set DOS 5, Windows, and Novell for, I have
re-installed DOS 3.3 on all my workstations in order to remove the problems
caused by TOO MANY variables.

If you have any better ideas, please let me know.  [Michael]



#: 9689 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:06:13
Sb: Sidekick problem
Fm: dean 73727,3052
To: Nate Boxer, 76711,202 (X)

Nate, thanks for responding.  Yes, I tried what you suggested: I loaded DOS 5
with absolutely no CONFIG or AUTOEXEC whatsoever (no XMS manager, so
*everything* is loaded low), and Sidekick still will not paste.  I cannot get
it to paste with DOS 4.01 either; I was hoping against hope that whatever
changed between 3.30 and 4.01 might have been fixed in 5.00.  Oh well.  This is
the only problem I've had with 5.00 - everything else appears to work
flawlessly.  Any other ideas?

Thanks again for your help.

Dean P. Macinskas

#: 9694 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  14:16:11
Sb: #mouse driver
Fm: STEVEN GRAD 76367,3212
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157

I just upgraded to ms-dos 5.0 and I am getting an error message regarding my
mouse driver.  I am using a micro soft bus mouse and the driver it came with.
How do I get a current driver for it? Steve Grad.



There are 2 Replies.

#: 11100 S3/Hardware Issues
    08-Jul-91  13:52:00
Sb: #9694-mouse driver
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: STEVEN GRAD 76367,3212

Steven,

Call Customer Service at 800 426-9400. If your Mouse driver is older than 6.21
then you will receive an upgrade for free.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 11109 S3/Hardware Issues
    08-Jul-91  14:00:00
Sb: #9694-mouse driver
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: STEVEN GRAD 76367,3212

Steven,

Call Customer Service at 800 426-9400. If your Mouse driver is older than 6.21
then you will receive an upgrade for free.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9695 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  14:17:53
Sb: #Northgat-SCSI Solved!
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: ALL

Your not going to believe this!

By mixing together DEVICE= and DEVICEHIGH= statements in the CONFIG.SYS,
causes my Northgate,AMI,Adaptec SCSI machine to hang!  By placing the
DEVICEHIGH statements after all DEVICE= statements, everything loads high
without problems.  This means that you cannot selectively try different
drivers within the CONFIG.SYS without changing their position in the file.

I have spent 5 SOLID days on this and am short much more hair than before
starting.  It seems that Microsoft could consider including a "File Format"
section in the next manual!  Geeeeez


DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\HIMEM.SYS /a20control:on
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE d=128 m9 auto noems
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\ASPI4DOS.SYS /v
DEVICE=C:\DOS\SYS\SMARTDRV.SYS 2048 512
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SYS\X00.SYS E B,1,19200 FIFO=15 R=1024 T=1024
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SYS\XANSI.SYS
DEVICEHIGH SIZE=3460 C:\DOS\SYS\MSCMOUSE.SYS
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /E:1024 /p
BUFFERS=10
FILES=60
BREAK=ON
LASTDRIVE=E



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10542 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:57:47
Sb: #9695-Northgat-SCSI Solved!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

Position in the file is only as important as the amount of space and preference
in loading which ones first.  I have done some research on your particular
configuration and you cannot load the adaptec controller high with smartdrv.sys
also being loaded high.  Bump the buffers to 20 also:


Loading Adaptec Controller High Hangs System

 Summary:

 If SMARTDRV.SYS is loaded high on a system with a Micropolis 330 MB
 hard disk model #1578-15 with Adaptec Controller model #1542-B,
 and it is partitioned into a single drive, the system will hang.

 Loading SMARTDRV.SYS low before loading anything high solves the
 problem.

 More Information:

 The disk transfers to the upper memory block (UMB) are not being put
 at the right addresses because the controller is not mapping addresses
 correctly. The only workaround available is to load SMARTDRV.SYS low
 (in conventional memory).

 This information applies to MS-DOS version 5.0.


Dev



#: 9697 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  14:26:02
Sb: #Mirror Problem
Fm: - Visitor 76517,60
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202

Dear SYSOP,
        I'm having a problem with "Mirror" and I hope that you can help. I load
the Mirror TSR with a line in my autoexec.bat file (mirror c: /ta /tc), and I
get responses that say deletion tracking is turned on for drives a and c. I can
delete a file and recover it from the command line using deletion tracking. If
I delete the file from the Dos5 Dos-Shell, I can not recover it using deletion
tracking in the shell or at the command line. I can always undelete it with the
/dos parameter. The only other TSR running is MS mouse.com ver7.03. The problem
seems to occur only if I delete the file from inside the shell.
                        Thanks for your attention,
                                 Joe Caruso

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10793 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:22:33
Sb: #9697-Mirror Problem
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: - Visitor 76517,60 (X)

Joe,

What you have said is true.  You need to use the /DOS option on UNDELETE to
undelete files deleted from within the DOSSHELL file.  The files are not found
without using the option.  This has been forwarded to the developers.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9698 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  14:38:37
Sb: #Windows crash
Fm: John Dolan 76476,3650
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

How about this for a new problem? Since increasing files to FILES=60, my system
has stopped hanging during the switchover from
Windows to DOS 5.0, however, now during the switch it sometimes does
a reboot and the whole system restarts.
I'll try the stripped down AUTOEXEC and CONFIG files and see how that works.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9749 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  16:55:21
Sb: #9698-Windows crash
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: John Dolan 76476,3650 (X)

Faced with reboots as you are, I'd look very carefully at the stuff in UMB. The
reboot routines are addressed in the UMB area.  If Windows thinks a part of UMB
is vacant when it actually contains some ROM, surprising things can happen.

At one point, I told EMM386 to include C600-CFFF because ASQ said this area was
"unused".  I found my machine going through endless reboots: it would start up,
proceed normally until it finished installing EMM386, and then it would reboot.

Thus, you might try adding some excludes to your EMM386 specification (if you
are using EMM386, that is).  If the stripped config.sys and autoexec.bat work
well, you're on the path to a diagnosis.




#: 9700 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  14:47:38
Sb: Mouse driver on PS/2 30
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Paula Beasley 75600,1156

IBM DOS 5.0 includes a new mouse driver.  You might try IBM Direct
(800)-426-2468, and see what they can do for you.



#: 10238 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  11:12:50
Sb: Mouse driver on PS/2 30
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Paula Beasley 75600,1156

Paula,

The driver you have is likely version 1.0 (IBM's mouse driver).  I have not
seen any problems with it, meaning that you should choose to ignore the error
message.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9705 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:48:17
Sb: #Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Horace Ory 71625,1006 (X)

The reason those files are there is so the the UNINSTALL process will work.
They should not pose any problems, but once you become satified with the
configuration they can probably be removed along with the old_dos directory.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9888 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  00:08:39
Sb: #9705-#Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Horace Ory 71625,1006
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

Probably so, but it would be more comforting to have documentation on just how
the upgrade is accomplished.  Presumably, when an OEM MS-DOS is upgraded, some
machind-dependent part of the system files are incorporated into the upgraded
MS-DOS, else some machine-dependent functions would be lost.  That opens the
door to lots of potential complications, which I'd rather be able to ignore.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10234 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:00:21
Sb: #9888-#Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Horace Ory 71625,1006 (X)

That is a good point.  In cases where folks are using stuff like Wyse and
Zenith 3.2xx which also used non-standard partitioning schemes...is it really a
good idea to jump on the generic upgrade?



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10381 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  16:27:54
Sb: #10234-#Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

MS-DOS 5.0 understands the Zenith partitioning schemes (with multiple primary
partitions).  That was done as part of the goal of having an industry standard
DOS.  The DOS kernel has support for significant PC manufacturer enhancements
(such as Zenith).  In addition, Setup detects incompatible disk logic and
either warns the user or automatically converts the disk to be DOS 5 compatible
(and it will "unconvert" it if you decide to uninstall).

DOS 5 Upgrade SETUP includes a database of PC manufacturer's DOS's which
includes the commands which the PC manufacturer modified (such as Compaq's mode
command).  When you run Setup and install over your old dos directory, any
command in that list is renamed to its old name plus the first 2 digits of the
old dos version.  For example, if you had Compaq DOS 3.31, the compaq mode
would be renamed to MODE33.  In addition, Setup adds MODE33.COM to the SETVER
table so that 3.31 is reported as the version to it.  This enables you to keep
using your OEM specific enhancements.

BTW: if you want to get rid of the old dos files which were not
     modified by the PC manufacturer, simply run DELOLDOS.  It
     will prompt you, then remove the old_dos.1 directory and
     finally remove itself.

Eric (Microsoft)



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10613 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  06:11:32
Sb: #10381-Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

OK, that's much better than the "robust" business, and is actually reassuring!
I take back nasty comments!  I complete the IBM upgrade on my PS/2, and
discovered that it gets rid of the old DOS completely, and if worse comes to
worse you just boot the uninstall and it reinstalls the old DOS.  No commands,
just lots of three-fingered salutes.  I also feel that the basic approach IBM
chose seems better as one does not have to figure out how to get their system
in a minimum configuration to run the setup program. The flub in that procedure
is that the IBM uninstall leaves the old DOS 5 files in the directory that were
not overwritten by the original DOS, even though the DOS 5 system files are
gone.  Not good.  My friend with the MS-DOS upgrade has to work all weekend, so
we are going to have to wait until Monday to do his.  Its a 286 so we will see
what your setup program comes up with! Have Fun!



#: 10603 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  02:33:17
Sb: #10234-#Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Horace Ory 71625,1006
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

I'm not sure of the answer to that, but would be careful.  I wish there were a
better description of how the upgrade works in such cases.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10615 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  06:11:55
Sb: #10603-#Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Horace Ory 71625,1006 (X)

See #10381 for a sounder look at how the new MS-DOS deals with the clones. I
guess DELOLDOS gets rid of the old files completely.  The IBM DOS procedure
removes all of the old files to diskettes during the install.  It was a matter
of preference I guess.  Overall I think the IBM procedure was better
conceptually, but they did flub the uninstall process by combining the old and
new DOS files in the same directory after the uninstall.  Since the IBM process
uses a batch file to do the uninstall, that is fixable though.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10632 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  08:04:56
Sb: #10615-Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Horace Ory 71625,1006
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

Yes, there are problems with both approaches.  I'll take a look at the message
you mentioned.  So far, the only problem found is that DRIVER.SYS no longer
handles what is now D:, a 3.5" 1.44MB floppy. I probably need to configure
differently.

#: 10272 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:45:37
Sb: #Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Horace Ory 71625,1006 (X)

Horace,

R J Decker's message is correct. We have had a few reports that the MS-DOS
upgrade was not correctly deleting the two hidden PC-DOS system files, but
other than that, no problems. In order to changes partitions you must install
to floppies, repartition and then copy over the DOS 5 files. This may seem
awkward, but since the upgrade ships as primarily an upgrade the disks were
shipped unbootable. This is one reason why you can install DOS 5 from a
network, or from your hard drive; you aren't dependant on booting off of the A:
drive in order to install DOS 5.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10604 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  02:37:44
Sb: #10272-Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Horace Ory 71625,1006
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Yes, I understand that and plan to do just the same.  It's not clear to me why
DOS 5 was shipped as an upgrade rather than as a bootable disk, which would
have avoided some problems.  Also, how does the upgrade accommodate OEM
versions of MS-DOS that include machine-specific functions in the system files?
Also, (now don't laugh) can I use the MS-DOS 5.0 upgrade to upgrade from MS-DOS
2.11.03 on a Tandy 2000? (Don't laugh and I wont cry.)

#: 10450 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  21:05:53
Sb: #Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Abie Kent 71441,1610
To: Horace Ory 71625,1006 (X)

If you remove the file attributesfrom the old hidden files, they can be
deleted. I just installed MS 5.0 over IBM 4.01 on a machine using Stacker. That
requires a similar trick. I have also seen comments from MS in this forum that
their DOS will install over either version of 4.x,whileIBM's won't, so perhaps
delolddos will take care of the system files anyway.
        Peace, AB

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10605 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  02:39:52
Sb: #10450-Upgrade over PC-DOS
Fm: Horace Ory 71625,1006
To: Abie Kent 71441,1610

Yes, I think that would work, but prefer not to go through such an awkward
procedure.  Probably the upgrade should have checked to find the PC-DOS system
files, saved them in oldDOS, and removed them from the boot directory.

#: 9706 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  14:48:26
Sb: DOS5/IBMDOS4.0 incompat!
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Scott Taylor 72401,410 (X)

The manual that came with those upgrades also said that was a no-no to start
with...



#: 10279 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  11:46:38
Sb: DOS5/IBMDOS4.0 incompat!
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Scott Taylor 72401,410 (X)

Scott,

You're absolutely right about the OEM signature. Glad you figured it out.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9708 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  15:12:47
Sb: #WINA20.386
Fm: Chuck Christenson 76702,432
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200

May I safely delete the subject file on a 286 system?  The extension implies
that it is only useful on a 386.

                                       - Chuck




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10794 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:22:38
Sb: #9708-WINA20.386
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Chuck Christenson 76702,432

Chuck,

You can safely delete WINA20.386 on a 286 machine without any worries.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9709 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  15:13:51
Sb: #smartdrv error
Fm: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164
To: all

I have installed DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0 on my IBM XT-286, which has  been
upgraded with a Mitsubishi MR-535 hard drive with WD 1006 RLL controller,
running under Ontrack's Disk Manager. The system has 3 floppies--A=1.2 Mb.
5.25", B=360 Kb. 5.25", and an external 3.5" 720K drive assigned as E, using
Driver.sys and EXDSKIO.sys.  I have a Logitech Mouseman serial mouse--the
windows package is from Logitech.
  As per instructions in the readme file, I copied dmdrvr.bi_  and xbios.ov_ to
my root directory prior to running SETUP. There are no instructions to rename
these files as replacements to Ontrack's dmdrvr.bin and xbios.ovl, so I didn't
rename them.
  The installation went fine....as a part of optimization I changed the
smartdrv statement in my config.sys file to device=smartdrv 1024 256 . Today, I
took note of an error message that I may have been getting right
along.....SMARTDRV -- Incompatible disk partition detected
       QUESTION-- what's wrong?  What do I do to correct it? Everything  is
running ok, as far as I can tell (except possibly smartdrv). No problems in
accessing either the c: or d: partitions of the hard drive.

Problem #2--I have had occasional failures of the system to recognize my
mouse--using the Logitech 5.01 driver, after exiting from a non-windows
application.  Ctrl-Alt-Del warmstart doesn't correct the problem, but a power
off--power on does.  The mouse driver is being loaded in my autoexec.bat file
(command is  c:\mouse\mouse 1 )
   I suspect some error in the Windows installation, but am at a loss as to
what it may be.

  Help!   <Charlie>

There are 3 Replies.

#: 9977 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  09:40:09
Sb: #9709-#smartdrv error
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164 (X)

The files included in your new DOS directory include a "Readme" file. Section
7.5 of this file will tell you whether you can accommodate the disk partitions
you have with Smartdrive.  Probably you can, by adding the switch /p.  But I
urge you to read the Readme file before you try adding the switch.

About your mouse, have you asked Logitech whether they have an update for their
mouse software that is needed for DOS 5?




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10175 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:14:14
Sb: #9977-#smartdrv error
Fm: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill: I printed out the README file even before installing 5.0---somehow I
missed section 7.5 on perusing it.  The answer is there--ROM BIOS doesn't
support the drive (of course!! XT286 BIOS doesn't know anything about RLL
controllers or Mitsubishi MR535 drives!).  Thanks for pointing me to something
I *should* have read. Guess I'll try reinstalling PC-Cache from PCT v6.
(Haven't upgraded to ver 7 yet, and am nervous about it, what with all the
vindictives that have been hurled at the upgrade)
  Now, if I could only get Logitech's (v. 5.01) mouse driver, DOS 5.0 and Win
3.0 to work consistently, I'll be happy (err--that is, until I get the craving
to upgrade to a 386 & SVGA <g.>)
    <Charlie>

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10194 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:47:38
Sb: #10175-smartdrv error
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164

I'm glad that you're on the right track now.



#: 10739 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  19:05:08
Sb: #9709-smartdrv error
Fm: Reinhold J. Gerharz 70662,2262
To: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164

You say you copied dmdrvr.bi_  and xbios.ov_ to your root directory.   DOS 5
distribution filenames ending in underscore signify compressed files. I think
these two files are intended to be EXPANDed (use the EXPAND program) and then
to replace the old version of these files.

RG.

#: 10795 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:22:48
Sb: #9709-smartdrv error
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164

Charlie,

SMARTDRV is detecting a partition created in a non-standard
manner--specifically the extended partition created by DiskManager.  There is
potential for corruption if SMARTDRV operates on these partitions, and
therefore the message.  What you want to do is use the /P option on SMARTDRV,
discussed in section 7.5 of the README.TXT file.  Please be sure you read the
qualifications for using this option before actually doing so.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9710 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  15:22:51
Sb: #XT Mem diff, 3.2->5.0
Fm: Bill Arzt 76357,3514
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

James,

I'm running a pair of IBM XT's in identical configurations. One has PC-DOS 3.2
and the other has MS-DOS 5.0.  When I read your original message I decided to
find out the answer just for the heck of it.  Here's what I've found...  Out of
a possible 655,360 bytes of memory, PC-DOS 3.2 leaves 599,776 bytes and MS-DOS
5.0 leaves 590,672.

My config.sys file calls for 30 files and 20 buffers.  The above numbers were
arrived at with no device drivers or any TSR's loaded, and a "normal"
autoexec.bat.  Hope this helps.

Bill

BTW, I haven't been able to get 5.0 stay running on the XT.  For some strange
reason it occasionally locks up the system and has to be rebooted. I've tried
everything I can think of to get it to stay running, but I just now uninstalled
5.0 and went back to 3.2 to see if I can get the problem to duplicate with this
DOS.

Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10001 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:35:40
Sb: #9710-XT Mem diff, 3.2->5.0
Fm: James E. LaBarre 73230,1030
To: Bill Arzt 76357,3514 (X)

9K doesn't seem too bad for the features that you CAN use with a conventional
XT (help, etc.), as well as the improved shell.  That was the problem with most
of the memory differences I saw listed; they only gave listings for systems
with extended memory.

                                                J.E.L.

#: 10000 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:35:32
Sb: XT Mem diff, 3.2->5.0
Fm: James E. LaBarre 73230,1030
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Yep, that's where it's from.

                                                J.E.L.

#: 9711 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  15:23:34
Sb: #CD ROM EXTENSIONS DOS 5
Fm: Andy Charmatz 76220,676
To: ANYONE

Where can one find CD ROM extensions for DOS 5.0?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10796 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:22:56
Sb: #9711-CD ROM EXTENSIONS DOS 5
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Andy Charmatz 76220,676

Andy,

Updates to CD-ROM extensions are available through the manufacturer of your
CD-ROM unit--since CD-ROM units differ from manufacturer to manufacturer, the
drivers are different as well.


Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9714 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:25:49
Sb: #DOS 5.0 Printing probs
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jerry Steinhauer 70274,1347 (X)

Jerry,

Can you print by doing this:

Copy Autoexec.bat LPT1:

Do you have PRINT loaded in your autoexec.bat? Can you print from any of your
major applications? Do you have GRAPHICS installed? What kind of printer do you
have and what modes does it support?

I'm still a bit perplexed at your problem. I think I'll need just a little more
information... Are you using EMM386?

Nate



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10247 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  11:25:31
Sb: #9714-#DOS 5.0 Printing probs
Fm: Jerry Steinhauer 70274,1347
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate,

I'm REALLY perplexed!  If I try to COPY a file to LPT1: or PRN:, I get the
following message:
  "Write Fault Error Writing to device xx"

No, I don't have GRAPHICS, PRINT, or EMM386 loaded.  The only app I can print
from is WordPerfect 5.1.  Any app that tries to use DOS's standard output
stream (LPT1: or PRN:) dies.  I write most of my own apps in MS BASIC
Development System and can't print from there, either.

My printer is a Tandy DMP 2100 (old, but useable).  I haven't had any problems
with it before I upgraded to DOS 5.0.  As soon as I boot with another version
of DOS, everything works again.

I'd really like to get DOS 5.0 working properly.  Thanks for all your help
thusfar!

Jerry

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10371 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  16:26:28
Sb: #10247-#DOS 5.0 Printing probs
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Jerry Steinhauer 70274,1347 (X)

Have you tried using the MODE command to setup the printer port? If so, what
command are you using?

Eric.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10880 S3/Hardware Issues
    07-Jul-91  11:29:05
Sb: #10371-DOS 5.0 Printing probs
Fm: Jerry Steinhauer 70274,1347
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

Eric,

No, I'm not using MODE, but just for the heck of it I tried it. It refused to
reconfigure the port due to a "Printer Error." Apparently, all these programs
use the same code to do the physical output to the printer.

Jerry

#: 10370 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  16:14:17
Sb: #DOS 5.0 Printing probs
Fm: Daniel Curry 71041,1654
To: Jerry Steinhauer 70274,1347 (X)

 Jerry, I am having the same problem with MS-DOS 5.0 and Epson LX-80 printer (
yes it is old, but it works). The printer did work great when I was runnig
MS-DOS 4.01. What was the changes????
 Please help.
 -Dan

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10881 S3/Hardware Issues
    07-Jul-91  11:33:51
Sb: #10370-DOS 5.0 Printing probs
Fm: Jerry Steinhauer 70274,1347
To: Daniel Curry 71041,1654 (X)

Dan,

Apparently we are in the same boat!  The ONLY way I've been able to print is to
reboot with DOS 4.0.  I, too, would like to know what MS did to DOS 5.0 to
create this incompatibility, but, nonetheless, there it is.

Jerry

#: 9715 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:26:00
Sb: DOS5 Partit. vs SectorSz
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: James McDaniel[ZiffNet] 72241,322

James,

Let me try this one mo' time:

0 to 15 MB disk has 8 sectors/cluster and a cluster size of 4 KB. 15 to 127 MB
disk has 4 sectors/cluster and a cluster size of 2 KB. 128 to 255 MB disk has 8
sectors/cluster and a cluster size of 4 KB. 256 to 511 MB disk has 16
sectors/cluster and a cluster size of 8 KB. 512 to 1023 MB disk has 32
sectors/cluster and a cluster size of 16 KB. 1024 to 2048 MB disk has 64
sectors/cluster and a cluster size of 32 KB.

I'm sure the list continues, but I personally can not imagine a hard drive of
more than 2048 Megabytes... makes my brain hurt.

Nate.



#: 9716 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:26:12
Sb: LOGITECH MOUSE
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Robert Schumm 75216,2140 (X)

Robert,

Mouse drivers in general are notorious for being "unpredictable." For one
thing, their memory resident size will vary. Another interesting point is that
they will often baloon out and overwrite the memory above them. This is no
problem when you load a driver low because there's nothing in conventional
memory yet. But, when you attempt to load it high, you may overwrite an
adapter's address space or even another TSR. Squeek.


Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9947 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  04:51:41
Sb: #LOGITECH MOUSE
Fm: Dick McCandless 70077,2631
To: David Arnold 72137,355 (X)

I hate to jump in the middle, but I, too, had an older version of Logitech's
driver (and, with great brilliance, I erased all my copies when I down-loaded
5.01); I haven't installed DOS 5, yet, but I managed to lock up my system
completely with the 5.01 driver.  All I could do was take it off. Perhaps one
day I'll get the old driver and be back in business.  I use, by the way, 386Max
on a 386 system.  I sounds as if the 5.01 driver doesn't work too well.
                               --Dick



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10139 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  00:18:55
Sb: #9947-#LOGITECH MOUSE
Fm: David Arnold 72137,355
To: Dick McCandless 70077,2631 (X)

For windows, the microsoft mouse driver works fine.... for me.


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10907 S3/Hardware Issues
    07-Jul-91  13:37:12
Sb: #10139-#LOGITECH MOUSE
Fm: Randall B. Lofton 71601,610
To: David Arnold 72137,355 (X)

I put DOS 5.0 on my 286 with Windows 5.0 and PCTools 7.0.  All well and good
but with the new LogiTech driver I have total loss of mouse when I leave
Windows.  I am running mouse.com from the autoexec.bat. Any help?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10981 S3/Hardware Issues
    07-Jul-91  21:47:15
Sb: #10907-LOGITECH MOUSE
Fm: David Arnold 72137,355
To: Randall B. Lofton 71601,610 (X)

Just try the mouse501.sys in your config.sys instead.... That's how I've done
it.  Also, be aware, dos apps in windowed version in windows do not get
"normal" mouse functions.


#: 10673 S3/Hardware Issues
    06-Jul-91  12:24:38
Sb: LOGITECH MOUSE
Fm: Robert Schumm 75216,2140
To: George Figge 76656,1563 (X)

It could be the size of the driver that causes the problems with my systems,
since the 5.01 is slightly larger than the 4.10, which works OK.  Both of the
systems I'm running are on AMI 386 MB's with the more recent BIOS. Bob Schumm

#: 9717 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:26:19
Sb: #dos5/northgate/bcx
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: mike pittelkow 70077,2156 (X)

Mike,

You are probably very tired of calling people by now, but I think Northgate
would be the place to call, not necessarily Borland.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9785 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  19:07:17
Sb: #9717-dos5/northgate/bcx
Fm: mike pittelkow 70077,2156
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I've tried calling northgate, just like everyone else, they passed the buck.  I
did get them to issue an internal tech support request on the prob{_lem though.
Haven't heard from them is about a week.  They said t{_hey{_'d call when
something showed up. EVERYONE has passed the buck at least once so far.
(including microsoft and borland)

#: 9784 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  19:05:24
Sb: dos5/northgate/bcx
Fm: mike pittelkow 70077,2156
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I've tried all the {_{_himem machines I know of (1-16), and {_have tried each
with /a20control:on and off.



#: 9719 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:26:33
Sb: AST - DOS 5.0 problem
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jay Chaisson 71257,2561 (X)

Jay,

When you say can't read, do you mean can't do a directory, load a file from a
program or switch to the A: prompt? Is your friend using EMM386? Has he tried
booting with no autoexec.bat and config.sys to see if the problem goes away? It
might be a conflict with the controller card and loading something high in the
Upper Memory Area.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9720 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:26:45
Sb: EMM386 report error?
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: jim savoia 74425,257 (X)

Jim,

I need a little more information from you first, like what have you loaded high
and how is your memory configured. MEM and EMM386 are detecting and reporting
memory in different ways. For one thing, EMM386 is a very careful program and
will not jump all over the Upper Memory Area if it detects anything 'strange.'
So, first of all, if you have Shadow Ram, disable it. EMM386 may be detecting
something strange going on and decide not to access that memory. MEM is
detecting whatever it sees and not trying to allocate anything and may
correctly report how much memory you have. In any case, I will need more
information to make a guess. Memory is very hardware specific.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 9721 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  15:26:56
Sb: #V5 and Micropolis Disk
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Dom Cassone 71051,23 (X)

Dom,

There are some serious concerns with some Tandy machines and I would urge you
to contact your dealer/manufacturer to find out what steps you might have to
take to make your machine accept DOS 5.

When you said that you removed inessential drivers, what drivers were
essential?

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10024 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  12:11:27
Sb: #9721-#V5 and Micropolis Disk
Fm: Dom Cassone 71051,23
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

I removed drivers such as the SCSI QIC tape driver, the SCSI CDROM driver, the
scanner driver, etc.  Others with the same machine but with smaller SCSI disks
have had no problems.  The problem seems to be with the large Micropolis drive
rather than from the machine itself.  While these machines are manufactured by
Tandy, they are build to DEC's (Digital Equipment Corp) standards and are
suspose to be 100% IBM compatable.  I work for the manufacturer and have
discussed general upgrading with the group responsible for the machine.  They
contend that the machine supports V5, again it seems that the only variable is
the large SCSI disk drive.

Pleas let me know if you need any other information.

thanks,
Dom

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10224 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  10:37:12
Sb: #10024-V5 and Micropolis Disk
Fm: Dom Cassone 71051,23
To: Dom Cassone 71051,23 (X)

Here is some additional data...I just upgraded an almost identical system to V5
with out a problem.  The only difference is that the system that worked had 3
Connors 209MB drives as opposed to large Micropolis drives.  The systemsare the
same model, the same memory,  the sam SCSI controller, the same software, etc.
Does this help narrow the problem?

Dom

#: 9723 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  15:33:44
Sb: #DosShell Mouse
Fm: Leslie Martin 70253,1454
To: all

About every second or third time I start up Shell I get an "INCOMPATABLE MOUSE"
message.  I am not sure I can get a newer mouse driver, and even if I could, I
am not sure I would want to bother because I am not really having a problem
with the one I have.  Is there anyway to disable this message or do I have to
live with it?

P.S.  I have an el-cheapo Genius mouse, if that makes any difference.



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10391 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  16:29:45
Sb: #9723-#DosShell Mouse
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Leslie Martin 70253,1454 (X)

I suspect you are using a RAMDISK and have your dosshell.ini file on it at boot
time.  Correct?  That would explain why you get the message every third time or
so (or more likely, every time you have rebooted your machine).  There is a
variable in the DOSSHELL.INI, MOUSEINFO= which gets set after you answer the
mouse compatibility message. If this information is saved on your RAMDISK, it
is lost when you reboot.  If this is what your doing, start dosshell, answer
the message, then press Shift-F9 (to start a command prompt), and copy the
dosshell.ini from your RAMDISK over to your dos directory on your hard disk.
That should prevent you from getting the message anymore.

Eric.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10690 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  13:39:06
Sb: #10391-DosShell Mouse
Fm: Leslie Martin 70253,1454
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

Eric,

Thanx for the note but, no, I am not using a ramdisk.  (I do have the
smartdrive cache installed, but I would not think that would cause the mouse
message to reappear, although I could be wrong.)

Any more thoughts?  I haven't checked the .INI file manually but since I have
answered the question *at least* once MOUSEINFO= should be set correctly--but
if I go in to check it how should it read--Yes,No,[FILL IN TH BLANK]?





#: 10556 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:59:39
Sb: #9723-#DosShell Mouse
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Leslie Martin 70253,1454 (X)

I have one of those at home myself.  Got it as a gift.  Cute little thing. I
DON'T use it with my dosshell though.  I don't relish the idea of my dosshell
getting corrupted which is a real possibility with an outdated driver.  I don't
want to spend the dough on the upgraded driver either.  So I live without the
mouse in DOSSHELL.  User Beware!  Know that risk before you decide to live with
it.



Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10691 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  13:39:14
Sb: #10556-#DosShell Mouse
Fm: Leslie Martin 70253,1454
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Devlin,

I wonder if there *is* an updated driver for this particular rodent.  My
brother-in-law just got a system with the same mouse and the *same* driver.
Although I do not use the DOSSHELL *that* much so far the only real trouble
that I have had with DOSSHELL is that it occasionally locks up but I am not
sure if that is because of the mouse driver or something else.

In what way could the driver corrupt the shell?  The .INI file only or some
other area?

Les  M.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10970 S7/DOS Shell
    07-Jul-91  19:47:40
Sb: #10691-DosShell Mouse
Fm: Robert Tankersley 70031,655
To: Leslie Martin 70253,1454

Leslie/Devlin;

I would like the answer to this also.

Robert

#: 9724 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  15:39:12
Sb: #MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Vince Rice 76244,2136
To: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621 (X)

Bill,
   I saw the entire thread, and I personally didn't consider Paul's
statements as "shots".  The fact that you did is really what I was
addressing in my last message.  The fact that someone has problems with a
product doesn't *necessarily* mean that they're down it.  Paul was merely
relaying problems he'd had, and you were basically calling him an idiot.
I'll admit I'm an old-fashioned guy, but I don't think that kind of
conversation is necessary or even acceptable (hence my apology for
contributing to it <g>).
   And, the fact that _you_ can get it to work does *not* mean they're isn't
a problem, and does *not* mean that Paul doesn't know what he's doing.  It
may just mean DR-DOS won't work on Paul's particular H/W and S/W
combination, which is really kind of the point being made in the first
place.
   IMO, the Mac is a *better* machine than the IBM-PC in a lot of ways
(and let's NOT start another thread about that one <g>), but Apple is paying
the price for not being STANDARD.  At this moment in time, DRI simply
doesn't have the muscle to survive if they're not completely STANDARD.  Now,
that may all change if IBM keeps making noises about it and OS/2 2.0 . . .
   I am NOT down on DRI; in fact I have made my opinion known that I don't
believe Uncle Bill cared a whit about DOS5 until DR-DOS5 showed up on the
scene.  However, I *do* believe DRI made one of the marketing blunders of
the decade by pricing DR-DOS exhorbitantly high.  If they had started their
"Toss your DOS" campaign a year ago, they probably could have tripled their
sales.


There are 3 Replies.

#: 9788 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  19:23:42
Sb: #9724-#MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Ron Nichols 71020,573
To: Vince Rice 76244,2136 (X)

Vince:

Congrats! on a nice, polite note expressing what I was trying to do in my
"DRDOS vs MSDOS vs Bashing" message.  Thanks!

Ron.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10304 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  11:50:05
Sb: #9788-MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Vince Rice 76244,2136
To: Ron Nichols 71020,573 (X)

No problem.  After spending a few weeks on the CPS forum (with PCT7 fiasco),
here, and Fox's forum (as pent-up demand for 2.0 reaches nuclear stages),
I'm ready for a little CALMNESS in everyone's life <g>.


#: 9886 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  23:58:30
Sb: #9724-#MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621
To: Vince Rice 76244,2136 (X)

Vince,

    Your points are well taken, but there always is room in the market for
better.  Take, for instance, Beta VCRs.  Sony is still making them, lots of
people are still buying them.  And they still make better tapes on any level
than any VHS yet devised.  That is my main point.  The majority always seems to
be willing to settle for mediocre.  I try to always opt for better.  My Beta
machine is in the shop. <G>.   BTW, there has long been a cheap way to get DR
DOS 5, even before the "TYD" program.  In the back of Dvorak's "Guide to DOS
and PC Performance" there is a coupon for the full version for $65.  You get an
excellent DOS reference plus the best DOS 5 all for less than the list price of
MS_DOS 5 Upgrade (if you could find the book at a discount - it was in most of
the warehouse clubs at under $30.). Other ways too, for the diligent.

Bill, PCWW.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10305 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  11:50:10
Sb: #9886-#MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Vince Rice 76244,2136
To: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621 (X)

Well, now that we're all speaking agreeably, and we've agreed on the
sentient points, I'm probably beating a dead horse, but I thought I saw him
twitch a little . . . <g>

Your Beta analogy is exactly what I was talking about.  Granted, Beta was a
better format technically, but cost of staying with better is almost no
access to tapes.  Of the forty-million and two video stores in my area, only
the two carry Beta videos.  I haven't seen a Beta video-camera since before
the 386 was announced.  So, sure, its better, but who cares if you can't USE
it?

And, while I think Congress and Detroit are proof of your statement about
the majority settling for mediocrity, I don't think it was the case here.
In the Beta vs. VHS battle, the majority cared more about length-of-time vs.
infinitesimal (to the great unwashed, quoting a local sports columnist <g>)
amount of picture superiority.  And, in the DOS world, adherance to
standards is more important than technical superiority, MOST OF THE TIME.

Given $30 for Dvorak's book, plus $65 for the full version, that's not even
close to the $39 for the DOS5 upgrade I paid.  But I AM considering that
tempting $29 DR-DOS upgrade offer . . .  Do you know what DR's policy is
going to be about v6 upgrades to the v5 upgrades (I think I lost even myself
<g>)?


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10997 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  00:58:55
Sb: #10305-MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621
To: Vince Rice 76244,2136 (X)

Vince,

     I think that the Beta problem was also more poor marketing strategy than
tape length or any other factor.  Sony tried to keep the hardware end of it to
themselves for too long, and when they finally did license more freely, the
game was mostly over.  I can generally get two full length features on one Beta
tape at a reasonable picture quality where one is about all I can get on a VHS.
3hrs, Beta; 2hrs., VHS.  Also dubs VHS>Beta look far better than VHS>VHS or
Beta>VHS.  So I get plenty of use out of mine even if it is hard to find rental
tapes.
    Considering you can't even buy a full, bootable version of MSD5 without
buying a new machine, $65. for the $199. full, bootable DRD5 with both size
diskettes is pretty reasonable.  And note, I was comparing to the LIST price of
the MSD5 upgrade ($99.95), not the Egghead insane price.
    I don't know as yet on the pricing of the DRD6 upgrade.  When I do, I will
post it over here.  I don't expect to see it 'till Sept.

Bill, PCWW.

#: 10100 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  19:42:03
Sb: #9724-MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Theodore Masterton 73125,241
To: Vince Rice 76244,2136 (X)

Jeez, Digital Research has ALWAYS had a price problem. I remember when I was
considering moving away from CP/M to that new IBM 8088 so many years ago...

CP/M-86 was over $300; but the salesman should me another DOS, for only about
$50 (???) that the 8088 would run. It was "a lot like CP/M" and there was
"going to be a lot of software written for it".

I didn't believe him. And I stayed with CP/M for another 4 years.


#: 9725 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  15:39:25
Sb: #MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Vince Rice 76244,2136
To: Paul M. Andry 76216,3065 (X)

Agreed on all counts.  Too many people in this industry (Uncle Bill among
them) think that technical superiority is enough - Customer Service went out
with the neru jacket.  And that's *especially* true with an up-and-comer
trying to knock out the champ.  I've been eyeing CompUSA's $29 deal for the
DR-DOS upgrade, mainly with DR-DOS 6 in mind . . .


There is 1 Reply.

#: 9939 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  02:02:33
Sb: #9725-MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621
To: Vince Rice 76244,2136 (X)

Vince,

     Right on!!  Maybe we should lobby WordPerfect Corp. to buy DRI.  Then we
could have the best of both worlds.  Technically superior systems software with
top-notch customer service.  I'm all for it.  I think if we could get WP,
Qualitas, DRI, Geos and maybe Borland together - Watch Out!! Unfortunately
things would probably degenerate to management by committee and design by
committee, then we would be worse of than we are now.  I guess they'll just
have to stay apart-- for their own good.

Bill, PCWW.

#: 9787 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  19:23:36
Sb: MS-DOS versus DR-DOS
Fm: Ron Nichols 71020,573
To: Paul M. Andry 76216,3065 (X)

Paul:

Excellent Point!  To see an example of what you mean and what all vendors
should examine if they *really* want to succeed in the real world, go to the
Symantec, Norton Utility Forum: NORUTL.  They are extremely responsive to all
messages, whether requests for help, or upset users.  In all cases, where there
was not an easy answer, Symantec people promised a phone call and/or a free
upgrade as soon as the problem was resolved.  THAT is professionalism!

Ron.



#: 9726 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  15:44:20
Sb: #SETUP Video Problem
Fm: George Patrick 75600,2257
To: ALL


        Is there a switch in SETUP that allows you to set the resolution up
manually?  I have a CGA monitor hooked up to an EGA card, when I start SETUP,
it sees the EGA and assumes I have an EGA display. Naturally I can't see
anything but lines.  If there is no switch, is there a patch I can make to
SETUP to lock it down?  I have had no problems with various PC's at work, but
this has me stumped.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10543 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:57:58
Sb: #9726-#SETUP Video Problem
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: George Patrick 75600,2257 (X)

Try using the mode command.  MODE bw80 & then try "setup /b".  If that doesn't
work, then try MODE co80 and then try "setup /b" again.  Tell us if that
helps....


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10635 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  08:41:54
Sb: #10543-SETUP Video Problem
Fm: George Patrick 75600,2257
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)


No dice...   I can see that it's a black 'n white display, but it is still out
of sync...  Any other suggestions ???  If I did a floppy install at work, could
I then transfer to my HD???



#: 9728 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  15:51:06
Sb: #DOS 5.0/IBM XT/ROMs?
Fm: Bill Arzt 76357,3514
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd,

I've got an IBM PC XT which is configured with 640K, a Hercules CGA card, a
Seagate ST251-1 hard drive with WD controller, an IDEamax 384 multifunction
card, a Quadram Quadmodem 1200 bps internal modem and 11/8/82 ROMs.

I have two questions.

1.)     IF all the hardware and firmware in the above configuration are working
 properly, is there any reason why MS-DOS 5.0 would lock up the system? I'm
experiencing problems with older versions of certain programs when I run them
(Norton 3.0, for example) that even SETVER doesn't seem to fix. I keep getting
locked up and occasionally I get error messages which only flash momentarily on
the screen.  Would the ROMs have any effect on the performance of the DOS?

2.)     In the DOS manual it makes an oblique reference to modifications that
DOS 5.0 will make to the hard disk.  What modifications?  I noticed that both
my C: and D: drives had serial numbers after the upgrade, and that any floppies
I use now have serial numbers on them.  What else does the new DOS do to the
hard drive?

Thanks for your help.                           Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10284 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  11:47:21
Sb: #9728-#DOS 5.0/IBM XT/ROMs?
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Bill Arzt 76357,3514 (X)

The reason SETVER does not fix the problems with Norton 3.0 is becuase it
cannot.  Programs such as the Norton Utilities and PC Tools are tied to
specific versions of DOS.  To do their magic, they either expect function calls
to DOS to work in a specific manner, or they use undocumented function calls to
do the work.  I believe it was you who had said that you tried DOS 3.3 and gave
up on it because it trashed your fixed disk a couple of times. The continued
use of Norton 3.0 on DOS versions that it was not intended for is what is
destroying your fixed disk data, not the DOS.  You MUST stop using Norton 3.0
with the newer DOS versions.  If there are other older disk utilities that you
are using you need to stop using them with DOS 5 also. If you do not believe
this, GO NORUTL will get you the online support for the Peter Norton Utilities.
They will tell you the same thing.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10462 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  23:06:25
Sb: #10284-#DOS 5.0/IBM XT/ROMs?
Fm: Bill Arzt 76357,3514
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

Steve,

Thanks for the information.  I understand what you're saying about the use of
Norton 3.0 under the newer versions of DOS.  I was using it successfully (and
continue to do so) under 3.2 and have experienced no ill effects.  I've just
ordered my upgrade, so all this will be moot very soon.

BTW, when I stated that PC-DOS 3.3 trashed hard drives, it trashed 2 of my own
personal units and 4 units at work.  It seems as though any XT with a non-IBM
hard drive experienced problems.  All the true-blue stuff worked great.  I
suspect the multitrack read might have been the culprit, but I'm not sure.  In
any event, only ONE of the affected machines had Norton installed and it was
never run under PC-DOS 3.3.  Go figure.

Thanks again.

Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10614 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  06:11:45
Sb: #10462-#DOS 5.0/IBM XT/ROMs?
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Bill Arzt 76357,3514 (X)

That is cute.  What were the brands on those drives?  I do a lot of used
equipment, and that would be something to watch out for!  Anyway I just
completed my IBM DOS upgrade, and I think it is well worth the while on an XT.
I have seen no real loss of conventional memory, and RAMDRIVE and SMARTDRV both
will use LIM 3.2 memory.  I have also noticed the difference between SMARTDRV
and IBMCACHE.  There is a big one!

I also found that the included mouse driver (MS 7.04) takes 5K more than the
PS/2 mouse driver 1.10, which continues to work.  If you are using mice on
those XT's you might try the old mouse driver first, as the only advantage to
the new that I know of is that it can be loaded high...which you cannot do on
an XT anyway!  MEM /C will show you in english what is using what. The other
MEM options are "technically oriented".

As for DOSSHELL and the "Task Swapper", I was not impressed with it.  Its mouse
operation is less handy than the DOS 4 shell, and the idea of the task swapper
just is not clicking for me <now when the power fails multiple applications can
be caught with their pants down!>.  BTW MIRROR /PARTN will save the partition
table to a floppy.  Have Fun!



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10905 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  13:28:32
Sb: #10614-#DOS 5.0/IBM XT/ROMs?
Fm: Bill Arzt 76357,3514
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

The drives were all brand new Seagate ST225s and ST251s with 8-bit WD
controllers.  Stuff I've been using/installing for years without any problems.
As it wound up, the *only* machines I was able to install PC-DOS 3.3
successfully on were those which came directly from IBM with factory-installed
drives and controllers.

Thanks a bunch for the info on the mouse drivers.  How did you know I took
advantage of Egghead's upgrade/Logitech Mouseman bundle?  I got the bus version
and haven't installed it yet, as I have some hardware problems to sort out.

BTW, the problem I've been having under DOS 5.0 kept occurring even after I'd
UNINSTAL-ed and gone back to 3.2.  I've been told the Portable PC (the machine
I'd been having trouble with) has a power supply that may be too weak to
support the additional drain of the ST251 I recently installed.  I guess it
took a while for the problem to manifest itself, and it was during the time I
was installing and testing 5.0 that I used the machine enough to make it
happen.  The jury's still out, but it looks like the PS might be the problem.

Fun, you say?  Just call me MISTER fun.....

Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10926 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  15:19:25
Sb: #10905-DOS 5.0/IBM XT/ROMs?
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Bill Arzt 76357,3514

Actually, I did not<g>!  The whole mouse driver situation with DOS 5 seems to
have become very contentious, and I thought it was worthwhile to point out that
the newest mouse driver is not always the best one.  Apparentely there are no
options on the Logitech mouse though.  I have always used MS based mice myself,
but my boss at work has a Logitech mouse.  In addition to the driver, there is
a TSR called CLICK which seems to provide mouse support to programs that would
not ordinarily have it.  If it really does this then it beats the doo-doo out
of MS mice.

I did see a discussion of HDs in the Portable on the IBM NSC BBS awhile back,
but the only trouble they indicated was having to use short cards in the slot
next to the drive bay because of the monitor, or something like that.  The one
fellow indicated that he had been doing it for years, but I have no idea of
exactly what model of drive he was using.  Have Fun!



#: 9729 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  16:00:36
Sb: #DOS hidden files
Fm: Darin Brox 72567,3267
To: ALL

Hello,
  I hope that someone can help. Microsoft informs us to call them with anany
problems, but NOWHERE do they offer a phone number.  After 7 tries with
directory assistance and 43 min on hold the phone bill has cost more than the
upgrade.
 The problem is that after installing V5 I have two sets of the system hidden
files : IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM start at the 2nd cluster of the drive.
IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS are there but not where I understand they thoshould be (at
the front of the drive). I thought that these were the same thing.  How then do
I get the MS versions to where they belong, and then delete the IBM
versions????

                                            Thank-you.....
                                                  Darin Brox

There are 3 Replies.

#: 9738 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  16:21:56
Sb: #9729-DOS hidden files
Fm: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412
To: Darin Brox 72567,3267 (X)

Darin:

One thing about DOS 5 is that those files no longer have to be the first two
entries on the drive to make DOS work.  You should be able to correct the whole
thing with a program like Norton's, by showing the hidden files and deleting
them, then running the "make a disk bootable" program, which will move the two
.SYS files to the beginning of the drive.

:RWA


#: 10038 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  13:23:34
Sb: #9729-#DOS hidden files
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Darin Brox 72567,3267 (X)

Darin:  You will get much faster answers here than by trying to call MS. Those
folks are pretty busy answering calls from people who don't use CIS.

With DOS 5.0, those two files nolonger have to be in a specific place on the
disk, nor do they have to be contiguous. So your system should work just fine
with them where they are (Those two files still have to be the first two in the
root directory though).

The two old files were renamed from .SYS to .COM and left there so that the
uninstall program could work.  If those two files are deleted and the space
used for something else, then the uninstall couldn't work, and neither could
the SYS command from a previous version.  There would be no way back to a
previous version except to format the drive.

Once you are sure you will never want to go back, use the ATTRIB command to
remove the SYStem and HIDden attributes, and then delete those files.

 - Legare




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10235 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  11:02:44
Sb: #10038-DOS hidden files
Fm: Darin Brox 72567,3267
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

Hello,
 I thank-you very much for your reply, I have done as you suggested and all is
all is fine.  I appreciate the quick response.  Thanx again... Darin

#: 10544 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:58:04
Sb: #9729-DOS hidden files
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Darin Brox 72567,3267

Robert's suggestions are interesting but one caveat, if you touch those files,
you will not be able to uninstall.....


Dev



#: 9734 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  16:16:26
Sb: DOS 5.O vs NOVELL 3.11
Fm: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412
To: JERRY 72700,223 (X)

Jerry:

A quick hint: if you type in all caps, you APPEAR TO BE YELLING.   It's also
much harder to read.

DOS 5 and NetWare are compatible.  I'm running the combination as we "speak".
Why don't you outline your problem?

Perhaps the "fix" you need is the updated IPX & NET5, which should be available
over in NOVA, probably Lib 16.

The main differences between IBM and MS DOS are: setup is different;  MS will
upgrade over any other DOS, but IBM will only upgrade over IBM DOS >2.11; file
dates are different; BASIC and QBASIC in IBM DOS (and therefore EDIT) require
that you are running an IBM, since it still calls the ROM basic; and that's
about it.  Very minor differences.

IBMs retail box does not include upgraded Network drivers, but the upgrades
from either MS or IBM include the drivers.  I've heard of problems with the
IBM-supplied versions, but can't tell you exactly what the problems are,
because I don't know.  I've never had any problems with the MS versions, and
I've been running DOS 5 since last November,  and attached to the NetWare 386
(then version 3.10) every time without a hitch.

:RWA


#: 9761 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  17:48:29
Sb: DOS 5.O vs NOVELL 3.11
Fm: Colin Whipple 70347,2314
To: JERRY 72700,223 (X)

I am using DOS 5 with QEMM 5.00 and Advanced Netware 2.15C with very few
problems.  The only significant problem is when running Network Scheduler from
Powercore from the DOSSHELL.  It sometimes acts very strangely.  I am very
happy with the additional memory DOS 5 gives me.

Colin


#: 10532 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  01:56:13
Sb: DOS 5.O vs NOVELL 3.11
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: JERRY 72700,223 (X)

1.  Yes they are compatible.....

2.  I don't know your setup, but maybe you want to check with novell to make
srure that you have the updated drivers that you need from their end...

3.  In the interest of not appearing too biased, I will simply say that I
recommend our product over IBM-DOS, and leave it to the other forum
participants to critique it.  I will note however that initial reports here on
the forum seem to indicate that we work with IBM pc-lan and IBM pc-dos does not
at this time......


Dev



#: 9735 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  16:16:38
Sb: #Lost search mappings
Fm: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412
To: Matt Barnette 76244,3367 (X)

Matt:

I can tell you what worked for me with the lost search mappings issue,  and I
no longer lose search mappings.  It's so easy you won't believe it, and I don't
even think Novell knows why it happens or how to fix it.

All you have to do is decide on a DOS limitation of path length.  In my case,
my users can have a DOS path up to 6 entries.  Then, in NetWare,  you start
your search mappings with S7.  If you start with S1, you'll step on the current
DOS path.  If you have less than 6 entries in your DOS path, your S7 will
effectively step down to S6 or S5, to become the next search in your entire
path made up of DOS and NetWare search paths.

Give it a try and let me know if it works for you.

:RWA


There are 3 Replies.

#: 9864 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  20:57:25
Sb: #9735-Lost search mappings
Fm: Dennis Dahlin 70272,2061
To: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412 (X)

Robert: Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it quickly and it looks like I can
make it work. I am still trying to figure out how to set my COMSPEC search path
:Dennis

#: 9874 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  22:08:02
Sb: #9735-Lost search mappings
Fm: Max Barret 72331,154
To: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412 (X)

Robert,

Nice trick. Sure beats mapping search paths in the personal login scripts to
replace what Netware has overwritten. Thanks.

   Max



#: 10124 S5/Networks
    04-Jul-91  22:28:05
Sb: #9735-Lost search mappings
Fm: Matt Barnette 76244,3367
To: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412 (X)

Robert,

Thanx for the idea.  I'll try it tomorrow.

Matt

#: 9737 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  16:20:31
Sb: #WINA20.386
Fm: Larry Lefkowitz 76137,155
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157

Dear Sysop,

It appears that the Dos 5 install program has installed a file in my root
directory call WINA20.386 which is read only. I cannot delete it. My system is
not a 386. Can I get rid of it and how?

Thank you.




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10136 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  00:07:53
Sb: #9737-WINA20.386
Fm: Gene Saunders 72265,23
To: Larry Lefkowitz 76137,155

Use the ATTRIB program to change it to writeable, then if you're not using
Windows 3.0 under Enhanced Mode on an 80386, delete it.



#: 10545 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:58:13
Sb: #9737-WINA20.386
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Larry Lefkowitz 76137,155

As long as it is not a 386 OR 386 SX machine, you can use the ATTRIB command to
remove the read-only attributes from it and delete it normally. Win3 uses that
file to use 386 enhanced mode in the presence of dos5.......






Dev



#: 9739 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  16:23:39
Sb: #Cluster size(s)?
Fm: Joe Botto 76545,2634
To: ALL

What cluster size does MS-DOS 5.0 use on various partition sizes? Reason for
asking...Presently using multiple cluster sizes with Ontrack's DMDRVR.BIN and
DOS 3.3.  This has been an exceptionally good arrangement to date allowing
placement of small files, etc. in a partition with 512byte clusters and larger
files on partitions with larger clusters(1K, 2K, etc.) The hardware
configuration that I have consists of twin physical drive units(42MB ea.)
connected to the same RLL controller.  Neither drive has ever been low level
formatted withOUT using the controller bios.  Partitioning & high level
formatting have allways been with Disk Manager tm. I suspect it would be a good
idea to start with a fresh "controller level" format prior to installing DOS
5.0 and if the cluster size is "reasonable" I could forget about using
DMDRVR.BIN.

Any comments, concerns etc, would be appreciated! Thanks in advance! Joe Botto

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10039 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  13:23:42
Sb: #9739-#Cluster size(s)?
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Joe Botto 76545,2634 (X)

Joe:  Here are DOS 5.0's cluster sizes:

0-16meg    4k 17-128meg  2k 128-256meg 4k 256-512meg 8k etc.

 - Legare




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10455 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  21:30:57
Sb: #10039-Cluster size(s)?
Fm: Joe Botto 76545,2634
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

Thanks for the info!

#: 9740 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  16:30:30
Sb: #5.0 upgrade on dshd 5.25
Fm: mish 72357,2263
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202

can i install the new ms dos 5.0 on 1.2 high density disks or must i use
360k dsdd disks

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10546 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:58:19
Sb: #9740-#5.0 upgrade on dshd 5.25
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: mish 72357,2263 (X)

360k diskettes only.  You can use 1.2mb floppies but the setup program will
only put 360K of info on them......




Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10655 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  10:08:39
Sb: #10546-5.0 upgrade on dshd 5.25
Fm: mish 72357,2263
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Thank you.

#: 9741 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  16:34:32
Sb: DOS5.0 File Handles
Fm: frank goovaerts 74007,1565
To: all

A first shot at describing this rather complicated problem.

One of my programs uses the EXEC statement to load a TSR, the program uses
overlays (Turbo Pascal 6.0).  Everything worked fine till I installed DOS 5.0,
now I run occasionaly out of file handles.  I.e. ever so often my program will
'eat' a handle when it has to load that TSR. Everything works fine if I preload
the TSR or if I make it non-overlayed. Has anybody any ideas, before I try to
isolate this problem (spent the better part of today getting to this point).
NOTE: Even tried to change my TSR by 'DOSKEY', same phenomena! --Frank

#: 9742 S10/Developers Exchange
    03-Jul-91  16:36:46
Sb: #DOS 5.0 File Handles
Fm: frank goovaerts 74007,1565
To: all

A first shot at describing this rather complicated problem.

One of my programs uses the EXEC statement to load a TSR, the program uses
overlays (Turbo Pascal 6.0).  Everything worked fine till I installed DOS 5.0,
now I run occasionaly out of file handles.  I.e. ever so often my program will
'eat' a handle when it has to load that TSR. Everything works fine if I preload
the TSR or if I make it non-overlayed. Has anybody any ideas, before I try to
isolate this problem (spent the better part of today getting to this point).
NOTE: Even tried to change my TSR by 'DOSKEY', same phenomena! --Frank

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9796 S10/Developers Exchange
    03-Jul-91  19:57:38
Sb: #9742-#DOS 5.0 File Handles
Fm: Chris Lord 70274,3025
To: frank goovaerts 74007,1565 (X)

Don't know if this is your problem, but many TSRs fail to close the standard
handles 0-4 before they TSR.  If any of these is redirected when they load,
that handle remains used since TSRing does *not*  close any open files held by
the process, unlike terminating.  This is commonly seen with 'FOOTSR >NULL'.
Almost as common as forgeting to free the environment before TSRing.

Chris


There are 2 Replies.

#: 9868 S10/Developers Exchange
    03-Jul-91  21:33:21
Sb: #9796-DOS 5.0 File Handles
Fm: Stewart Berman 76366,1664
To: Chris Lord 70274,3025

The problem did not seem to exist in Compaq DOS 3.31.  I have a number of
BAT files that load a TSR (i.e. a mouse driver) at the begining and unload it
at the end.  Under DOS 5.0 I will eventually run out of FILES.  I did not have
that problem under 3.31.  Is it related to the functions of SHARE that were
moved to the base operating system?



#: 11072 S10/Developers Exchange
    08-Jul-91  10:39:32
Sb: #9796-DOS 5.0 File Handles
Fm: frank goovaerts 74007,1565
To: Chris Lord 70274,3025

I'm not sure I know how to get a hold of the standard handles. Could you give
{_me a hint{_ ?

#: 9744 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  16:52:15
Sb: #CD-ROM and MicroSoft?
Fm: Dave Hallas 70134,3611
To: all

 Does anyone know if MicroSoft has given up on CD-ROM?
 Both the WINDOWS and DOS manuals ignore any mention of it
 and I've had great difficulties using my CD with either.
  I have a boot set-up which will work with DOS 5.0 but
 using a CD with WIN3 is seemingly impossible.
  Any CD-ers out there?

There are 3 Replies.

#: 9965 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  08:36:49
Sb: #9744-#CD-ROM and MicroSoft?
Fm: Dale Dobson 73637,3457
To: Dave Hallas 70134,3611

    Dave,

          I haven't had much luck running CD applications under Win3 - not
because of any compatibility problems, it's just the memory limitations of real
mode.  Maybe someone from Microsoft can let us know what the Windows Multimedia
Extensions may do to alleviate these problems (such as providing CD-ROM
extensions that run under Windows, rather than as memory-eating device drivers
under DOS.)  Of course, as Windows-compatible CD applications start appearing,
this will be less of a problem.  At the moment, I presume that the market
crosssection of Win3 users and CD-ROM owners is small but growing.

(BTW, if you know anyone trying to run Mediagenic/Activision's "the Manhole",
ask them if they have the problems I'm having - the system OFTEN runs out of
memory and puts garbage on screen or error messages. Despite the manual's
contention that the program needs 520K free to run, it seems to be forgetting
to deallocate space - not a very elegant imitation of Hypercard for DOS, if you
ask me.  A neat program otherwise, I just wish I didn't have to choose my
exploration routes to avoid the crash zones.)

                                          -- Dale Dobson

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10188 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:28:02
Sb: #9965-#CD-ROM and MicroSoft?
Fm: Alex Hahn 71261,3345
To: Dale Dobson 73637,3457 (X)

Dale,

What type of CD-ROM drive are you using to run the Manhole disc.  If its
Hitachi, they just came out with new drivers to solve the problem.  If so,
leave me a message and I'll help you get a copy.

Alex Hahn - Bureau of Electronic Publishing

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10325 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  13:18:56
Sb: #10188-#CD-ROM and MicroSoft?
Fm: Dale Dobson 73637,3457
To: Alex Hahn 71261,3345 (X)

Alex,

  I'm using a Chinon CD-ROM drive, unfortunately.  This is rather frustrating,
since it's temperamental enough that sometimes a section will run successfully
and sometimes not.  I've got about 597K of free RAM under DOS, and I've got my
MSCDEX buffers up to 24 at the moment (any more and I can't load the CD
driver/extensions high, although I may experiment some more.)  If I had
children playing the disc, I imagine they would be very annoyed by now - it's
such a wonderful product, if I could only get it to run properly!

    On a related subject, are you folks at the Bureau starting to see more
home-type applications emerging?  I'm probably going to be ordering some CD
software in the next few weeks - the IBM/Nat. Geo. Mammals encyclopedia for one
- and I'm interested in any educational/entertainment products coming up.
Thanks!

                                           -- Dale B. Dobson

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11079 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  11:42:46
Sb: #10325-CD-ROM and MicroSoft?
Fm: Alex Hahn 71261,3345
To: Dale Dobson 73637,3457

Dale,

There are many good educational CD-ROM discs, like our own U.S. History on
CD-ROM and Countries of the World.  If you would a free copy of our 165 page
catalog, call us at [phone], or leave a private message here.

Alex Hahn - Customer Support Manager - Bureau of Electronic Publishing

#: 10064 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  16:01:41
Sb: #9744-CD-ROM and MicroSoft?
Fm: Bill Childs 71211,447
To: Dave Hallas 70134,3611

I'm running my CD in Windows.  No problems now but when I first set it up!
Whow.  I'll try and help you if I can.



#: 10797 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:23:09
Sb: #9744-CD-ROM and MicroSoft?
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Dave Hallas 70134,3611

Dave,

Microsoft has most definitely not given up on CD-ROM.  I am not personally
familiar with the setup and usage of CD-ROM units, but there is a section of
the MSAPP forum devoted to this topic.  I suggest posting any inquiries
regarding the use of the product there, as the technicians/users in that area
are familiar with the technology.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9750 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  17:05:10
Sb: MSDOS 5
Fm: joerg sattler 74016,631
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

BIOS ver 1.43

#: 9751 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  17:06:34
Sb: DOS 5
Fm: joerg sattler 74016,631
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

will try anything before I have to backout and repartition and reformat.
Thanks, will let you know.     Joerg

#: 9752 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  17:10:57
Sb: "Stoned" Virus
Fm: Gary E. Ashford 76010,1377
To: All

The other day I picked up on a thread about the "Stoned" virus.   Anyway, I
noted that I had it in one of my machines and cleaned it up.  Unbelievable, but
the day before the 4th, I came to realize it was on one of my other machines.
"Stoned" attacks the DOS partition table, and the time bomb that went off was
that it "deleted" three of my partitions containing over 165 Meg of data.
Initially, I couldn't determine what was going on because they were lost to
FDISK as well.  I used SCAN from McAfee Associates, [phone], and it found
"Stoned" hiding in my partition table.  I used their program CLEAN to get rid
of it, and it seems that everything is back to normal.  My hat is off to MA for
making my day with their Shareware Marvel!  The original virus came from a
computer manufacturers MS-DOS distribution diskettes, so be careful folks! MS
is clean, clean,  clean, so don't worry! ...gea

#: 9753 S9/Shareware (MS-DOS)
    03-Jul-91  17:19:00
Sb: DOS 5.0 and Secure
Fm: Stuart J Macdonald 70451,2017
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200

I am a developer of a Shareware utility called Secure that provides Hard disk
security in addition to Format and write protection. To accomplish this feat i
had to write my own partition loader code which decrypted/encrypted the
partiton table on the fly and did some other things. This system works fine on
all IBM PS/2 systems and compatibles (save several versions of NCR BIOS). I
have run this system with DOS 3 to 5 from both Microsoft and IBM, again with no
problems.

I had several clients upgrade to DOS 5.0 from 3.0 and 4.0 who after running the
Setup utility, couldn't boot from their hard disk - my utility had its
Partition code overwritten with MS-supplied code but unfortunately, the old
Partition table remained.

Could someone please explain why Microsoft needs to access the Partition table
outside of perhaps updating the OS type field for the partition record used by
DOS 5.0? If the system is booted from the C: drive, my code will allow for
transparent access to the entire Partition table. The only problem arises when
the user boots from the Floppy drive and DOS can't see the Hard disk because
his OS type field is not found(encrypted).

PLEASE HELP!

THANKS IN ADVANCE


#: 9754 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  17:28:31
Sb: #DOS 5 & AT&T6300
Fm: joerg sattler 74016,631
To:  76711,200 (X)

The Bios I have is 1.43 and that was installed when I upgraded to DOS 3.2.  The
D: drive was partitioned under 3.2 and formatted the normal way, not knowing
that it did'nt have to be. During its's exixtence it has been lowlevel formated
and DOS formated once after installing it. So the partition table is there
someplace. In fact DOS 3.2 FDISK tells me it's there and reports it as a msdos
partition worth 612 tracks large.    I really hate to have to go through the
backup and restore and all that when so far I have not even got a response from
MICROSOFT about why DOS 5 is unable to access a perfectly good and existing
dospartition. Particularly since the Drive C: and Drive D: drives were setup
partitioned and formatted at the same time using the identical proceedure.
Makes me a litle bit confused and mad. After installing DOS 5 drive C:
recognized and booted from without problem so why It wont read drive D: is
strange.    Joerg
                                                  74016,631



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10547 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:58:26
Sb: #9754-DOS 5 & AT&T6300
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: joerg sattler 74016,631 (X)

Use Fdisk/status in dos5 and tell me what it says.  If it says non-dos
partition, then your older version of dos partitioned it in an a typical manner
and that's all there is to it as far as dos is concerned.  If it says it was
never formatted then it either never was or it was in some atypical way.



Dev



#: 9755 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  17:32:49
Sb: #DOS 5 on MONO & no shell
Fm: Norm Alterman 70655,1300
To: Anyone

Will DOs 5.0 work OK on an old Hercules mono. I've got 386 with 4 meg. Primary
use is AutoCAD development.
I can't get dosshell to work. Locks up the system.  HELP !




There are 2 Replies.

#: 9896 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:39:23
Sb: #9755-DOS 5 on MONO & no shell
Fm: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321
To: Norm Alterman 70655,1300 (X)

 I use a hercules on a 386SX 16Mhz (with 1Mb ram) and shell works fine. Maybe
something questionable in your autoexec and/or config.sys ? Any TSR's ?

dimitri P.





#: 10821 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:47:45
Sb: #9755-DOS 5 on MONO & no shell
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Norm Alterman 70655,1300

Norm,

I suggest expanding the proper DOSSHELL video files off of the original
diskettes, just to be sure that you are running the proper files.  In your
case, you want to expand HERC.VI_, MONO.IN_, and HERC.GR_ to DOSSHELL.VID,
DOSSHELL.INI, and DOSSHELL.GRB.  More information on this is found in the
Getting Started manual, pp. 44-46.  It's a section for when you change your
monitor, but is applicable in this case to insure you have the proper video
files.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9756 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  17:36:15
Sb: #DOS 5 problem
Fm: mike trig 74000,735
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Thanks Todd. I tried that and it worked. I get about 90k with the ram switch
and about 30k with the noems. I mean the other way around. 90K with noems. Next
problem. The manual is very skimpy on task switching. i start 1-2-3 and then
Ctrl-Esc back to the shell. Then I start WP 5.1 and hang up when I try to
Alt-Esc between apps. If I use Ctrl-Esc and go back to the shell each time, it
seems to work, but that's very slow. Where should I start looking for the
problem? Thanks again, Mike 74000,735

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10776 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:19:36
Sb: #9756-DOS 5 problem
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: mike trig 74000,735

Mike,

How is your machine configured, i.e. how much memory available, how much is
used as extended/expanded, etc.?  Please post your CONFIG.SYS file along with
this information, and we'll take a look at it.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9757 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  17:40:45
Sb: WIN 3.0 Enhanced Mode
Fm: Brian Key 100014,3022
To: Lewis Malone 72227,2725

Further to info already relayed to you; see the file README.TXT in the DOS 5
directory which gives details about storing it out of the way in other
directories.  From memory, you add the line SWITCHES=/W to CONFIG.SYS, and a
DEVICE=[path]WINA20.386 after the [386Enh]  header in the SYSTEM.INI file of
Windows.
I tried it today and - it works...

Bryn

#: 9759 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  17:45:02
Sb: #Task Swapper eats EMS?
Fm: Colin Whipple 70347,2314
To: vAUGHN bUCK 73407,2441 (X)

I think it is entirely possible that Microsoft does not want their "low-end"
product, DOSSHELL, to compete with their "high-end"  product, Windows.  I use
Windows at home, on top of DOS 5, but use the DOS SHELL at the office because
Windows is extra money, and I don't want to go to the time and trouble of
getting Windows to work on the network.

DOSSHELL does 90% of what I need anyway; I don't need multi-tasking,  I just
need task-swapping.

Colin

There are 2 Replies.

#: 9869 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  21:39:42
Sb: #9759-Task Swapper eats EMS?
Fm: vAUGHN bUCK 73407,2441
To: Colin Whipple 70347,2314 (X)

Excellent analysis.  I too find that DOS 5 does all that I need. I have windows
and its ok, but too slow.  I've tried Software Carousel and it works well but
I'd rather have a task switcher which is integrated into Dos.  I may alone, but
I like the Dosshell.

#: 10555 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:59:31
Sb: #9759-#Task Swapper eats EMS?
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Colin Whipple 70347,2314 (X)

You're kidding right?  Dosshell is there primarily for the MANY(read: lots) of
people out there without a machine as powerful as a 286(XT or below) and
limited memory(640K).



Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10686 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  13:06:15
Sb: #10555-Task Swapper eats EMS?
Fm: Colin Whipple 70347,2314
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Devlin:

The thing I like most about DOSSHELL is its task-switching abilities.  This
ability is far more useful on a computer with enough memory to set up a RAM
disk to swap into.  I use the DOSSHELL for task-switching every day at work,
and I like it a lot.  I have recommended to our computer manager that more
copies of DOS 5.0 be purchased for that reason.

The ability of DOS 5.0 to load part of itself, and TSRs, out of conventional
memory also requires more memory.

As far as the other features of DOSSHELL, I haven't seen anything that any good
menuing program does not have.  In addition, "Real Men Don't Use Menus".  (Less
anyone misunderstand, that last is partially a joke).  But outside of Windows,
where are icons are a sort of unavoidable menu, I do not use any menus on my
computer at home.  I don't need a menu to run WordPerfect.

Colin


#: 9814 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:30:31
Sb: Task Swapper eats EMS?
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Russ Wilner 76256,3545

I checked your thread on this subject and could not find your question. Could
you perhaps repeat it if you are of a mind to?


Dev



#: 9815 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:30:37
Sb: Task Swapper eats EMS?
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Colin Whipple 70347,2314 (X)

Colin, this will hopefyully answer both your and Russ' concerns.

Yes.  You are correct.

You cannot have multiple EMS apps going at the same time with task swapper
enabled, that are using a page frame at the same time.  I would be more than
happy to provide more detail if requested, but the long and short of it is that
you have a memory mapping conflict in such a scenario......


Dev the Diligent



#: 10515 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:53:59
Sb: Task Swapper eats EMS?
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: vAUGHN bUCK 73407,2441 (X)

It is easier to just go to himem and say gimme than it is to go to emm386 and
say would you ask himem to give you some memory so that you can give it to me
in bank switching morsels.....


Dev

P.S.

Slowly but surely I am catching up to you guys in the present, but all
questions as you have so rightly stated must be answered.  So sayeth the gnomes
at Microsoft....



#: 9760 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  17:47:08
Sb: Windows & DOS icon
Fm: Brian Key 100014,3022
To: all

On two machine types, each previously running DOS 4.01 & Windows perfectly
well, I find that after installing DOS 5 the DOS command prompt icon produces
the message "Application error, can't find file.  Check path and filename".
Apart from the fact that this hasn't been altered, it's correct!!
(C:\COMMAND.COM or C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM)
Even running the File Manager and clicking COMMAND.COM directly produces the
error message.

Anyone else seen this sort of thing?


Apart from that... 629187 kBytes free, even with my usual TSRs loaded high,
will do *very* nicely...


Bryn


#: 9762 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  17:51:29
Sb: #hidden swap files
Fm: Phil Schuman 72510,1164
To: all

I was trying to find where the task swap files were stored and this is what we
found on our machine - a 286 AT.  We just shut the thing off and then went
hunting with Norton.  There is nothing in the manual about these files - where
they are stored and attributes.
We found them as R/O, hidden and named xxxx.TMP   We also found some xxxxx.BAT
files that invoked the applications used under the task swapper.  Anyway, the
hidden swap files were found in our \WINDOWS\TEMP directory.  When I renamed
this directory, future swap files were put into the \DOS directory.  I don't
appreciate any software product creating hidden files on MY system.  I
regularly go hunting for hidden files - based on what a CHKDSK tells me.  I
don't think there is any good reason - it makes it difficult to clean up if
someone just turns off the machine.   If MS is going to hide them,  then at
least mention something about them in the manual.


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10548 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:58:37
Sb: #9762-hidden swap files
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Phil Schuman 72510,1164

As long as you exit DOSSHELL in the normal manner, you will not have any
problems with the temp files or the .bat files.  They are deleted on exit. I
appreciate your lack of appreciation, but the way the program conducts itself
while it is busy swapping your tasks is normal and I think you might be a
little surprised at Windows behaviour as well.  You cannot have this feature
without that unless you want to configure your machine with tons of memory and
just create a ramdisk and set your temp directory there.......




Dev






#: 9763 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  17:55:59
Sb: #Unable to control A20..
Fm: John N. Ayres 72357,507
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157

I just installed the Update on a Tangent 386/SX20.  When the machine boots up
the following message is displayed:

                        Error:  Unable to control A20 line.
                       XMS Driver not installed.

                        HMA not available.  Loading DOS Low.

The installation process inserted the following lines in the CONFIG.SYS file:
         DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
         DOS=HIGH

How can I overcome this problem???







There is 1 Reply.

#: 10549 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:58:44
Sb: #9763-#Unable to control A20..
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: John N. Ayres 72357,507 (X)

Use the /m:x switch for the himem line[i.e.  device=c:\dos\himem.sys /m:x],
where x is a whole number between 1 and 16.  It will depend on your particular
machine as to which one works for you.  I would start with 8, 2 and 1 in that
order.  Then try the rest if one of those three don't work for you.......



Dev




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11071 S2/Setup & Install
    08-Jul-91  10:26:17
Sb: #10549-Unable to control A20..
Fm: John N. Ayres 72357,507
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200

Dev,

C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS /MACHINE:12 works perfectly with the Tangent 386SX20 computer.
                           * John



#: 9765 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:02:26
Sb: MS-DOS 5.0 & Disk Mgr.
Fm: John M. Campbell 73700,1646
To: Shermane Austin 71750,250

Thanks, Shermane.  I will try it & see what happens.


#: 10514 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:53:50
Sb: #MS-DOS 5.0 & Disk Mgr.
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: John M. Campbell 73700,1646 (X)

I believ that section says if you have a "partition greater than 512MB
do...OTHERWISE, do the following...."

Yes you need the XBIOS.OVL file.  These are the updates from the vendor,
OnTrack Computer Systems.....


Dev





There is 1 Reply.

#: 10612 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  05:55:13
Sb: #10514-MS-DOS 5.0 & Disk Mgr.
Fm: John M. Campbell 73700,1646
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

I was advised by someone else to go ahead & replace dmdrvr.bin with
the new driver with DOS 5.0 (dmdrvr.bi_) & ignore the ovl file.  I
tried this, and it worked.  The only difference is, DM now reports
it is version 5, rather then version 4.  The main thing is, DOS 5
did go ahead with the installation routine & I have access to my
partitions.  I probably should update my Disk Manager program
though.  I am going to check into the Quaterdeck forum.   Thanks.


#: 10529 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:55:43
Sb: MS-DOS 5.0 & Disk Mgr.
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Shermane Austin 71750,250

It has been my experienc eto follow the instructions of the people who write
the software.  We didn't write the DM software, but they are the ones that
strongly recommend that you put that XBIOS.OVL file in the same directory with
DMDRVR.BIN.  You don't HAVE to doit, but for goodness' sake, why dice with
destruction??


Dev



#: 9766 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  18:04:31
Sb: Dos 5.0 and MS Word 5.5
Fm: michael payne 70164,3333
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202

I upgraded to Dos %.0 today on an NEC Powermate 2 which previously ran Dos 3.3.
After upgrading, I found that Microsoft Word 5.5 would not print, even though
the printer driver for the HP IIP is still loaded.  I have tried all printer
drivers, but the message on the printer still comes up as error.

Has anyone else had a problem with 5.0 and word??  Is it a function of the
printer??



#: 9767 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:05:29
Sb: #OK til repartitioned
Fm: Mike Pritchard 73210,3133
To: All

Everything was working OK when I upgraded to DOS 5.0.  Then I decided to
repartition to get one big disk.  I saved everything on the network, then
eliminated the partitions, created a new one, and reformatted.  Rebooted from
floppy, connected up to the network, and brought everything back to the system.
Rebooted and tried it out.  All the information seemed to be there, and most
things appeared to work - but there were one or two strange things going on.

Invoking COMP generates an 'Incorrect DOS version' message.  So does CHKDSK and
EDLIN.  I assigned default to a system floppy and they all worked fine. I then
compared COMMAND.COM etc to the hard disk.  All seemed OK.

Something seems wrong with Command.COM but I don't know what?

Any ideas? Mike (I'm also getting error messages from Windows about 'can't run
in enhanced mode without WINA20.386 in root directory of boot disk, but I think
that might be something to do with losing the permanent swapfile.)




There are 2 Replies.

#: 9983 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:41:12
Sb: #9767-OK til repartitioned
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Mike Pritchard 73210,3133 (X)

That WINA20.386 file is on the DOS 5 disks in compressed form.  It is installed
in your root directory automatically if the Setup program finds Windows.  Since
you had taken everything off in order to reformat, Setup didn't find Windows
and didn't install this file.

You need to copy WINA20 from the DOS 5 disks and to decompress it at the same
time.  First, verify that the file expand.exe is in your DOS directory. Then
locate the file WINA20.38_ on the DOS 5 disks.  The underline instead of a 6
denotes the compressed file.  Put the correct disk in drive A:, and then
command

expand a:wina20.38_ c:\wina20.386

Note that you are replacing the underline with a 6.

I suspect that those "wrong version" messages are coming because you got some
stuff off the network (Chkdsk, Edlin, Comp).  Is it possible that you
transferred a bunch of DOS 4.x or 3.x files from the fileserver and overwrote
the files that came with DOS 5?

Non-DOS programs can also generate "wrong version" messages.  You can use the
SETVER command to add the names of these programs to the SETVER list. See pages
561-564 in the DOS 5 User's Guide.




#: 10550 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:58:53
Sb: #9767-OK til repartitioned
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Mike Pritchard 73210,3133

Is the wina20.386 file in the root directory?  You didn't say.Try expanding the
files in question from the original diskettes or from your working set if you
have made them yet.  It sounds like the files got corrupted on transfer to
me.....




Dev



#: 9769 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  18:07:24
Sb: Novell loses COMMAND.COM
Fm: MARC CRANE 75410,134
To: crt gsl 72230,2003

MAKE A BATCH FILE WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMANDS:

SET PATH=%PATH% SET COMSPEC=%COMSPEC%

IN YOUR LOGIN SCRIPT EXIT TO THE BATCH FILE. THE TWO LINES IN THE BATCH FILE
WILL MOVE BOTH THE "PATH" & "COMSPEC" ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES TO THE BOTTOM OF
THE DOS ENVIRONMENT.  THERE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM BETWEEN DOS & NOVELL NetWare
SHELLS FOR A LONG TIME.  THIS SEEMS TO CURE THE PROBLEM WHEN YOU EXIT FROM AN
APPLICATION AND GET THE INVALID COMMAND.COM MESSAGE.

IN THE LOGIN SCRIPT HAVE AS THE LAST STATMENT:

EXIT "SETUP.BAT"

THEN THE BATCH "SETUP.BAT" THAT CONTAINS THE TWO LINES ABOVE WILL BE EXECUTED,
PLUS ANY OTHER BATCH COMMANDS YOU NEED.




#: 10171 S5/Networks
    05-Jul-91  08:02:50
Sb: #Novell loses COMMAND.COM
Fm: laura dowling 76424,3302
To: Douglass Laing 72067,1376 (X)

  I just wanted you to know that I checked my version of LOGIN.EXE and it is
version 3.08.  We are experiencing the same problem loosing the command
interpreter.  I have made the other suggested changes.  We had a statement of
SET COMSPEC = "C:\COMMAND.COM" already in the system script and revised that to
DOS SET COMSPEC = "C:\COMMAND.COM" and added the line DOS SET PATH = "%PATH%".
  I don't know yet if this will resolve the problem, but I don't think the
substituting LOGIN.EXE 3.58 for LOGIN.EXE 3.08 will be a solution.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10306 S5/Networks
    05-Jul-91  11:53:22
Sb: #10171-#Novell loses COMMAND.COM
Fm: robert smith 70401,500
To: laura dowling 76424,3302 (X)

I just read in LAN Times that another check is to look at your config.sys file.
If DOS set your comspec to C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM change it to C:\COMMAND.COM.
That took care of my problems.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11076 S5/Networks
    08-Jul-91  10:56:02
Sb: #10306-Novell loses COMMAND.COM
Fm: laura dowling 76424,3302
To: robert smith 70401,500

I also saw that article.  Pretty good one at that.  Unfortunately, I already
had this set as suggested at the time I was experiencing the problems.  I
believe the suggestion of expanding the environment space has corrected the
problem.  The other change I made which may have been instrumental was a change
in the system login script from SET COMSPECT = ... to  DOS SET COMSPEC = ....
[H [D I don't know for sure what the difference is between those two statements
(typo aside) do you?

#: 10757 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  21:23:33
Sb: #10171-#Novell loses COMMAND.COM
Fm: Douglass Laing 72067,1376
To: laura dowling 76424,3302 (X)

We still have the problem on some programs, when the program exits to DOS but
not all the time. The same program may exit properly 6 out of 10 times, then
lock up with the Invalid COMMAND.COM problem. Novell and Microsoft are treating
us as we have done something wrong with our systems. Well when a system work
with MSDOS 3.3 for some years then we upgrade some sations to MSDOS 5.0 and we
get these problems, I think the problem is not ours. There is an article in LAN
TIMES (July 8,91) that came today (MS-DOS 5.0 Neglects Netware) it talks about
our prolem and some others. Microsoft and Novell are responding as if this was
either a new problem or the users do not know what they are doing. From what I
have seen it looks like Microsoft and Novell are in a political battle and we
the users are stuck in between. As for me, we are taking our customers back to
MSDOS 3.3a and puting MSDOS 5.0 back on the shelf with the brain dead MSDOS
4.01 until either MICROSOFT or NOVELL talk to each other and fix the problem.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 11077 S5/Networks
    08-Jul-91  11:04:11
Sb: #10757-Novell loses COMMAND.COM
Fm: laura dowling 76424,3302
To: Douglass Laing 72067,1376

        I agree that the problem is a real one.  I upgraded from the "brain
dead" IBM DOS 4.01 underwhich I experienced no problems.  I know two of the
beta testers on 5.0 who ran on their networks for some while and when I
inquired stated they had no problems.  Who knows? I agree that it is sporadic.
I expanded my environment space as was suggested and changed the statement in
my system login script from SET COMSPEC = ... to  DOS SET COMSPEC ==


(ignore typos) last Friday and have not yet run into the same loss of command
intrepreter.  Do you know the difference between SET COMSPEC and  DOS SET
COMSPEC ?
        I also read the LAN Times article and thought it was quite well
written.  I fear you may be experiencing the typical problem with Microsoft and
Novell support, where info doesn't flow down to the front line support people
as quickly as it ought.  I often think it would be beneficial for those support
folks to monitor these FORUMS as a routine part of thier job.  It appears both
companies are attempting to improve their support policies, in the mean while
I'll keep bopping up here for help & guidance.

#: 10491 S5/Networks
    06-Jul-91  01:50:52
Sb: Novell loses COMMAND.COM
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Phil Karnoff 75360,615 (X)

You can consider that to have an official seal.  There is no reason why it
wouldn't work, that I can think of.  Long term effects?  Check in the Novell
forum(go nova, Ithink) to ask the Netware gurus.....


Dev




#: 9770 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  18:09:21
Sb: #5.0/Deskview
Fm: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514
To: Ron Kokish 76234,1762 (X)

Ron:
Yup! If you load Dos High and run Deskview you end up with 620 free.
Honest...I am doing so, but only when you run Manifest without DV.  When you
load DV you loose memory...but are still way ahead of 4.01 and 3.3 with same
configurations.
Bruce

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9881 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  23:43:05
Sb: #9770-5.0/Deskview
Fm: Ron Kokish 76234,1762
To: Bruce Schoenfelder 74776,3514

Bruce:
Not sure I understand.  When I load Dos High and run Deqview, do I end up with
620k for EACH DESQVIEW WINDOW or is that what I have at the Dos Prompt, without
Desqview running.  If the latter, what is the gain, if any, when Desqview IS
running?

#: 10744 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  19:24:48
Sb: 5.0/Deskview
Fm: John Murff 76656,2141
To: Ron Kokish 76234,1762

Ron,

I came back to the problem last night and it was over in no time.  It took an
hour or two to verify, but I got the following:

in dos5, w/o dv - 637296 bytes free in dv, total conv mem - 582
       total available coven - 574
       largest avail coven   - 574
       exp lgst avail        - 576

using latest qemm, a mildly older dv (I have dv386 5.34) because I haven't
figured out how to get the best out of the newest.

Loadhi indicates lots of room in r2 and some in r1.

PCT V7.01 works like a champ, contrary to all of the kvetching we hear on the
CPS forum and elsewhere.  It just ain't V6.  I have tried backup, restore,
compress and the various shell fucntions and, while they are a little weird
(work off of the top line menu on bu and res, to get it going if going through
the screen does not work) but I can tolerate weird, if it does the job.  I do
not know about fax, commute, desktop and maybe some of the other stuff - I use
a stand alone fax and dv windows for the tsr's.  Yet to be figured out is how
to load cache and delete tracker w/o degrading the 576 number - each, singly,
costs 16k in the exp avail box - together, I cannot say.  (I have little need
for a cache so that will probably slide, as will del trk which I have never
used in my PCT experience.)

OTOH, mirror (the DOS5 version is used now) presents possibilities.

Also, V7 makes a mess out of DV if you do not choose character over graphics
somewhere along the line (which is not in the installation process - use
PCConfig).

I will send my confile (essentially that published here by Bob Luce Msg. #8474)
if you wish.  If you are getting better results or have a handle on cache,
tracker or mirror, please send me yours.

John

#: 9771 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  18:14:44
Sb: #VIDEO PROBLEM/DOSSHELL
Fm: JAMES SCHUMACHER 72321,1147
To: JAMES SCHUMACHER

I HAVE INSTALLED DOS 5.0 AND IT WORKS GREAT EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. WHEN I GO
INTO DOS SHELL MODE AND TRY TO SET THE OPTIONS TO GRAPHICS MODE MY SCREEN
WASHES OUT LEFT TO RIGHT WITH SNOW. CAN YOU MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS. MONITOR: NEC
MULTISYNC 3D, GRAPHICS CARD: PARADISE 1024. THANKYOU FOR YOUR HELP.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10557 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:59:46
Sb: #9771-VIDEO PROBLEM/DOSSHELL
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: JAMES SCHUMACHER 72321,1147

You could try expanding the vga.gr_ to dosshell.grb and vga.vi_ to dosshell.vid
and replace the current ones in your dos directory......




Dev



#: 9773 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  18:16:54
Sb: Desqview and DOS 5.0
Fm: Steve Flowers 73077,1776
To: All

When using Desqview with DOS 5 I'm getting mouse 'droppings' in any app. run
under Desqview that uses a mouse (Xtree, PC Tools, Procomm+). Outside of
Desqview everything works ok.  Any suggestions?? exit

#: 9774 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:17:52
Sb: #MS-DOS 4.01
Fm: Vickie Micallef 76137,3226
To: ALL

I learned something new about installing MS-DOS 4.01 today and wondered if you
can enlighten me.

A friend bought a brand new Samsung 386SX which does not automatically come
with DOS and so DOS was bought separately.  During the installation it was
discovered that they required a FORMATTED disk to complete the installation.  I
found this odd.

If the computer is brand new, DOS utility files will not be on it and therefore
there is no way to format a disk before going through the installation process.
This would not be a problem if the computer was an addition to a large company
but if it is a small company with one computer there is some difficulty.  The
two options are to run to the store and buy preformatted disks or run to the
company next door to format a new disk.

I thought that DOS would be smart enough to format as it copied the necessary
files.

Did this slip through or was it intentional?


Vickie Micallef



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10551 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:59:01
Sb: #9774-MS-DOS 4.01
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Vickie Micallef 76137,3226

You can use disk #1 to format a disk on the fly.  It is a startup disk.  You
can boot exit from the startup script by pressing the <escape> key at the first
screen and use the format command to make your floppy.  FWIW.



Dev



#: 9775 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:17:54
Sb: #5 and FutureDomain SCSI
Fm: David C. Hill 71531,1444
To: anyone

  What exactly did DOS5 Setup do to the partition table on my SCSI drive?  I
have a 286 with a 42M MFM partitioned with FDISK into C: & D: and another
controler FUTURE DOMAIN which was partitioned into E: and F: with their
software under 3.3.  When I tried to install 5 it seemed to be going well, had
created an undelete disk and copied files from all 6 floppies.  Then the light
on the SCSI flashed, I got a disk error message and was sent into uninstall.
Now I am back on 3.3 but something was done to the E: and F: drive.  I cannot
start windows 3.  DOS takes for ever to do a DIR on either drive.  I called
Microsoft and when I finally got through I was told setup should not have
touched the SCSI drive and told to load to floppies, then I was cut off and
have not called back.  I reached  Future Domain who offered
 to sell me release 7.0 of their BIOS but said partitioning software would not
be available until Fall.  Is there anything else I can do but wait.  Hasn't
anyone else experienced this problem?

There are 2 Replies.

#: 9889 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  00:23:32
Sb: #9775-5 and FutureDomain SCSI
Fm: Michael Gillespie 70631,155
To: David C. Hill 71531,1444 (X)

We found that MS5 goes out and "touches" the boot sectors of ALL harddisks on a
system, not just the boot disk. I have seen elsewhere that MS5 is putting is
own ID into the OEM location but don't know for sure that this is all its
doing.

Whatever it does, though, it makes a volume previously unreadable under 4.x now
readable under 4.x.



#: 10552 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:59:09
Sb: #9775-#5 and FutureDomain SCSI
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: David C. Hill 71531,1444 (X)

I understand you are frustrated, but could you possibly tell us a little more
coherently.  I'm having trouble following you.  Be exact with your hardware
configuration, versions and type of BIOS, and the full text of any error
messages.





Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10837 S2/Setup & Install
    07-Jul-91  04:17:12
Sb: #10552-#5 and FutureDomain SCSI
Fm: David C. Hill 71531,1444
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Dev,
    Yes I was frustrated.  I have a 286 machine with a Phoenix Bios and 2 Meg
Extended Memory.  My first HD is a Seagate 151-1 on a Western Digital
Controler.  The one is Segate 177N on a Future Domain TMC-860 with ROM 6.02.
The first disk wh FDISK under DOS3.3.  The SCSI disk was Formated and
partitioned with the Future Domain utilities.  It has one Extended DOS
partition split among 2 logical drives (E: and F:).  Since I left the previous
message I realize part of what happened.  I could not run windows because DOS5
SETUP had deleted my windows HIMEM.SYS from the root directory of C: (ANSI.SYS
and SMARTDRV.SYS also disappeared) and UNINSTAL did not put them back.  I have
ordered the latest BIOS (7.0) from Future Domain ($12) but it has not yet
arrived.  In the meantime I have gotten my system back up on DOS3.3 by loading
the original HIMEM.SYS and SMARTDRV.SYS from the WINDOWS 3 install disks.  I
would just like to warn others not to count on UNINSTALL  to get your system
back the way it was.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10870 S2/Setup & Install
    07-Jul-91  10:10:49
Sb: #10837-5 and FutureDomain SCSI
Fm: BILL BURKE 75600,2757
To: David C. Hill 71531,1444

David, I have a Seagate 80MB SCSI and a Dandy 3000 controller (Future Domain
Chip Set version 6.02) - I used DOS 4.01 to create the DOS partion at 80MB, and
I used DOS 4.01 to format the drive.  I had problems with SmartDrive from DOS
4.01, Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.0a.  When I installed DOS 5.0 and used it's
version of SmartDrive, *all* problems seem to have gone.  I am currently
experimenting with HyperDisk - it seems to be working very well and has
increase HDD access **TEN** fold.

I caught the tail end of this thread - I may have missed your point(s) but I
certainly can relate to your frustration getting a Seagate SCSI to act like a
gentleman.  I rarely boast about programs but HyperDisk really does work - with
all my applications - Windows, WordPerfect 5.1, Lotus 1-2-3 v3.1, PageMaker
4.0, CORELDraw, Harvard Graphics, PcTools v6.0, Norton and all sorts of
different communications programs.

Thank you, Bill Burke CBANUG



#: 9776 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:28:56
Sb: #DOS 5.0
Fm: Joseph H. Rappeport 76672,3721
To: MICROSOFT

        When I installed Mos 5.0 I got an error message, A20 hardware conflict.
The program would run with the Sys. disk in A drive otherwise it would not run.
Can you tell me what the problem is?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9978 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:40:16
Sb: #9776-DOS 5.0
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Joseph H. Rappeport 76672,3721

Read page 611 in the DOS 5 User's Guide and sections 2.15 and 3.6 in the file
README.TXT that is in your DOS directory.  Very likely, you need to add a
/machine:xxxx switch.




#: 9777 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:31:21
Sb: IMSI Mouse
Fm: Jack Coats 73670,2476
To: All

I have a Toshiba T3200 with a serial IMSI Mouse (a $19.95 special at Jade some
time ago).  Does anyone have or know where I can get an updated mouse driver
for it?  It has some files with it like KMOUSE.COM & .SYS, but no idea what
flavor of mouse it really emulates.

Any Help would be welcome... JC

#: 9778 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:47:15
Sb: MSDOS 5 and Neat-ATs
Fm: MICHAEL VARIO 71620,3324
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Hi Todd!  If it were only so simple as JUST Tools and Dos5.  I got Windows
about 3 weeks ago, went from a 286 to a 486 a week ago (bare bones, so I had a
whole hardware transfer experience I won't go into, except it was easy and
worked A-OK, just took a few hours), Microsoft Mouse 8.0 (windowable with
pif's, .ini's and all), and if I'm not masochist ic enough, I got QEMM
yesterday.  And, the real scary and wonderful thing is that I got it all
working.  Windows was the worst, but by reading messages on CIS, exploring the
.inf file and the text files on the .ini's I was able to make all the
adjustments necessary.  As for caches, I've pretty much stuck to the one from
PC-Tools (never even tried smartdrive), better the beast we know than the one
we don't <g>.  And yes, one thing that helped me all along was keeping backup
copies of Autoexec and config (as well as Win and system ini's).  In fact I run
with 2 versions or autoexec/config: .std and .win, which I copy to bootables
and reboot depending on what I'm doing.  But yes, I realize the sane thing
would be to get used to one before adding to the confusion, but I guess I like
living on the edge, and it WAS an experience. My next thing is to really get
into Windows (enhanced)  which aside from getting to WORK I really haven't
gotten into, and really nothing past what I'd done in standard mode on the old
machine.  But I don't want to get too comfortable, you know?  But I'm also beta
testing Falcon 3.0 on the side. Talk sbout complex?  It's the only thing I have
that uses the math coprocessor.  Thanks again, and I'll talk to you soon!!

-Misha




#: 9779 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  18:47:25
Sb: #DOS 5.0 AND WINDOWS 3.0
Fm: MICHAEL VARIO 71620,3324
To: Joy M. Cohen 71350,2733

No task swapper?  I have to try that.  629K?? I got QEMM a,d while I moved up
I'm only getting 619K  Wonder how much stuff I need that's in there?  I know a
use a little on my HardCard driver, and contrary to QEMM manual I allocate
stacks (right off the bat when I tried 0,0 I tried Aladdin and it wouldn't
boot, so I gave that up)?  If you get a chance how about posting your
autoexec.bat/config/sys?  I'd like to see if there's anything in there that I
can use to tweak some more free space.  I just getting into the particulars of
QEMM.  Thanks again and I'll talk to you soon!!!

_Misha




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11113 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  14:15:02
Sb: #9779-DOS 5.0 AND WINDOWS 3.0
Fm: William Massano 70531,714
To: MICHAEL VARIO 71620,3324

I get between 630 and 636K depending on my config.  I use QEMM as well.
                                                        WM


#: 9780 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:47:34
Sb: EMM386/WIN/STANDARD MODE
Fm: MICHAEL VARIO 71620,3324
To: Lucy MacClintock 70053,303 (X)

NOW you tell me!  I jsut got QEMM the other day, and it's working A-OK, but HOW
did you do it?  I am very curious, and it'll probably come in hand sometime.
Thanks!!

-Misha




#: 9805 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:29:29
Sb: EMM386/WIN/STANDARD MODE
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: KEN CHERRY 72117,455

First of all, you really should place dos=high,umb between himem and emm386.

I assume that your machine is an at-compatible or earlier(if not be aware that
the default value of stacks for 386 or higher is 9,128)

It is not possible for Win3 to run in Standard mode if you are loading UMB's in
to the UMA.  When you use this feature, you throw the machine into PROTECTED
MODE.  Win3 cannot run Standard mode in protected mode.  I hope this sheds some
light on it for you.

Dev the Dedicated




#: 10259 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  11:44:42
Sb: #EMM386/WIN/STANDARD MODE
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: MICHAEL VARIO 71620,3324 (X)

This is incorrect, Misha.  Windows in standard mode is fine with emm386 if you
are not loading devices and/or apps high. If you are loading devices, et al
high then WINDOWS knows this is not a stable environment and will refuse to
load in standard mode.  Now this is the important part to note:

THE ONLY WAY FOR A THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE PACKAGE TO RUN IN WIN3-STANDARD MODE,
WHILE LOADING UMB'S IS TO ALTER(READ: HACK) THE WINDOWS KERNEL!!

For those of you that don't understand what the kernel is, it is the heart of
Win3, the source of all niftiness, the code.  This ties you to the version of
Windows and means you must get an update for the memory manager every time
there is an update of WINDOWS, even a maintenance update.

You may never have a problem if you opt for this workaround.  It may be the
best solution for some of you, but it is not something that Microsoft
recommends that you do.  I hope this clears up some of the confusion.....

Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10765 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  21:49:12
Sb: #10259-EMM386/WIN/STANDARD MODE
Fm: MICHAEL VARIO 71620,3324
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Thanks for the clarification.  I sort of knew that, but loading stuff into
UMB's is sort of an assumed with my (I don't even consider not doing it), so I
guess I just eliminated mentally that option.  So naturally, for me, and my
neurosis for free conventional memory, I have no problem relying on QEMM. I
know that the current version will probably not work with the next Windows, but
I also know that  they'll probably have an upgrad available within a couple of
weeks of its release.  But thanks again.

-Misha




#: 10261 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  11:44:47
Sb: #EMM386/WIN/STANDARD MODE
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Lucy MacClintock 70053,303 (X)

PLEASE read my reply to Misha...




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10749 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  20:19:32
Sb: #10261-EMM386/WIN/STANDARD MODE
Fm: Lucy MacClintock 70053,303
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

>> PLEASE read my reply to Misha...

Dev, I read your reply to Misha, but it doesn't address the issue I was
raising:  how to get EMS for DOS apps run full-screen under Win standard. I'm
aware you can't specify RAM or NOEMS or DOS=HIGH,UMB--in fact I mentioned that
in my original message.  To repeat it (and please let me know if my reasoning
is wrong!):


1.  Use this syntax in the config.sys (with Dos=high,noumb):
       Device=EMM386.exe [amount of EMS memory you want] AUTO

This creates the page frame and the EMS, but it remains inactive.

2.  Load Windows in standard mode.  AS with QEMM's EMBMEM parameter, the EMS
memory is not available to Windows.

3.  Load your DOS apps that need EMS with a batch file like this:
       EMM386 on
       Agenda [or whatever]
       EMM386 off

This gives you EMS for DOS apps run full-screen under Windows standard mode.

4.  Unlike QEMM, you can't also load TSRs high with this config (since if you
create UMBs with either the RAM or NOEMS parameter,  the state of EMM386 is
always ON).  But DOS *will* load high, which many people are unable to do with
QEMM.  Memory-wise, it might be about equal for some users.




#: 9781 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:47:41
Sb: 5.0 WIN3 >>HELP
Fm: MICHAEL VARIO 71620,3324
To: RALPH W. RASER [PDX] 70633,12 (X)

Try taking a long look at your win.ini and system.ini files.  I don't know
about others, but THAT'A where my problems were (Some file names/paths had
changed, *as if by magic*).

-Misha




#: 10258 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  11:44:32
Sb: 5.0 WIN3 >>HELP
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: RALPH W. RASER [PDX] 70633,12 (X)

Don't give up yet. Use the /3 switch..... Check to make sure that you are
meeting the requirements of WIN3 in 386 enhanced mode BEFORE you execute the
WIN command:

Enhanced Mode Requirements
 --------------------------
 1. The requirements for WIN.COM to automatically start up in enhanced
    mode are as follows:

    a. 80386 processor or above
    b. 1024K of free extended memory
    c. HIMEM.SYS loaded in the CONFIG.SYS file

 2. The actual enhanced mode requirements are as follows:

    Enhanced mode conventional/extended memory requirements are
    mutually dependent and are not fixed.

    A typical installation requires a minimum of 182K free at the DOS
    prompt to run enhanced mode, assuming sufficient extended memory is free.
    Enhanced mode requires between 580K and 624K combined conventional
    and extended memory to run (approximately).

    Note that enhanced mode is able to start up in low-memory
    situations only because it provides virtual memory support;
    although enhanced mode may run in such situations, it may be
    extremely slow due to the large amount of disk swapping it must
    perform.
 Dev




#: 9782 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  18:51:20
Sb: #SMARTDrive ??
Fm: Peter Mokover 70310,235
To: All

I just installed DOS 5 on my Compaq 385/25 and all but one thing appear to be
working fine so far.  The one problem is with the cache program SMARTDrive.

I put the following line in my CONFIG.SYS file:

       device=\dos\smartdrv.sys 1024

When I boot the computer, SMARTDrive does not load and I get the following
message:

       SMARTDrive: Incompatible disk partition detected

All of my disk partitions seem to be OK.  My hard disk is partitioned into
five logical drives (C - G) and I have no trouble accessing any of them.

Note: I did NOT re-partition when I installed DOS 5 because I wanted to keep
my partitions the way they were.

What should I do about SMARTDrive?

Peter

There are 2 Replies.

#: 9984 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:41:20
Sb: #9782-SMARTDrive ??
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Peter Mokover 70310,235 (X)

You must have created those disk partitions with a program other than MS-DOS,
and DOS recognizes that they are foreign.  There is an override switch /p.  It
is documented in the file README.TXT in your DOS directory. I urge you to read
the instructions before you try this switch, because it can cause trouble in
some situations.




#: 10553 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:59:18
Sb: #9782-SMARTDrive ??
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Peter Mokover 70310,235 (X)

If you do not want to reparttion then you can use a third party partition
software product like the one from PC Tools(PC-Cache, I think).

You are getting that message more than likely because you have a hard disk that
was partitioned by either a third party product or a dos that was radically
altered by the OEM(this is your previous version of  DOS).




Dev



#: 9783 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  18:52:42
Sb: #IBMDOS.COM vs MSDOS.SYS
Fm: Rod Walsh 72441,3542
To: all

Last month I installed DOS 5.0 (didn't everyone).  Two files now on my hard
disk are IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS.  Two older files remaining are IBMBIO.COM and
IBMDOS.COM.  Should I erase those two older files.

My system WAS an IBM AT.  What it is now I'm no longer certain - I added an
Inboard 386/AT and replaced the original BIOS chips with a set of AMI 386 ROM
BIOS chips.   Thanks....ROD

There are 3 Replies.

#: 10035 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  13:23:09
Sb: #9783-#IBMDOS.COM vs MSDOS.SYS
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Rod Walsh 72441,3542 (X)

Rod:  You can delete those two files as soon as you are sure that you will
never want to go back to a previous version.

 - Legare




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10334 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  14:09:30
Sb: #10035-IBMDOS.COM vs MSDOS.SYS
Fm: Rod Walsh 72441,3542
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

Dear Legare, thanks a bunch...ROD

#: 10041 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  13:40:54
Sb: #9783-#IBMDOS.COM vs MSDOS.SYS
Fm: George Figge 76656,1563
To: Rod Walsh 72441,3542 (X)

I think deleting the old PCDOS system files is optional, Rod.  I was bitten by
the neatness bug and deleted mine.  Then I thought about the "hole" I had
created and decided I should defrag the disk.  To get the new system files
temporarily moveable, I had to remove the "system" and "hidden" attributes
befor defragging, which caused me enough concern that I did a complete backup
first. The defragging went fine so I didn't need the backup.  So I put the "S"
and "H" attributes back in, retested the system, and buttoned everything up.
All in all, a lot of trouble to get rid of a couple of little files. Of course
it wouldn't have amounted to much if I had just left the holes alone.

George



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10335 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  14:10:32
Sb: #10041-IBMDOS.COM vs MSDOS.SYS
Fm: Rod Walsh 72441,3542
To: George Figge 76656,1563 (X)

George, thanks...Rod

#: 10799 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:23:26
Sb: #9783-#IBMDOS.COM vs MSDOS.SYS
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Rod Walsh 72441,3542 (X)

Rod,

You can safely delete the two IBM system files without risk to your system. You
must first remove the hidden, system, and read-only attributes if they are
present.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11047 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  08:31:41
Sb: #10799-IBMDOS.COM vs MSDOS.SYS
Fm: Rod Walsh 72441,3542
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd, thanks for reply....expect to delete those two files this week....ROD

#: 9786 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  19:17:35
Sb: 5.0 and PCT 6 compress
Fm: Daniel Bard 72261,411
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200

PCTools Compress (version 7) with DOS 5.0

I have a Wyse 386 with two hard drives (c & Dd) and under 5.0 DOS the compress
came up with a PPCT error 832 bad FAT. Did a diskfix, and found oone bad
sector. Tried again, got same message. Removed 5.0, got back to 3.3 and
everything wworked FINE. Any clue?? 72261,411

#: 9789 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  19:29:57
Sb: Beta Software Upgrade
Fm: Robert MacDonald 76477,2305
To: TODD MARTIN, 76701,157 (X)

Todd, Thank you for your response.  My address is 294 Emporia Blvd #U1, San
Antonio, TX, 78209-4054.  If you need additional information please contact me.
Thanks again.  Robert MacDonald

#: 9790 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  19:31:14
Sb: DOS 5.0/WP 5.1 Problem
Fm: Martin J Rosenblum 73670,2670
To: SYSOP (X)

Did I post this in right place? (General - same subject)  No answer yet!

#: 9791 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  19:33:48
Sb: #MS DOS 5.0 & keyboard
Fm: john W. Crawford 72337,2116
To: Tom Price 75300,620 (X)

   Another problem with keyboards.... I'm running MSDOS 5.0 on an XT clone with
Phoenix BIOS and a Keytronics 101 key keyboard set up for XT operation.  I also
notice scroll keys becomie numerics when I hit Ctrl-break from within a QBASIC
program (isn't GORILLA fun!).
    I did hit the NUM-lock key and the NUM-lock light came on but the cursor
keys worked but then I was in some kind of block mode in the edit window and
when I hit delete I wiped out a whole block of text.

   Anyone know of any fixes?
                                 JWC

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10245 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  11:13:56
Sb: #9791-MS DOS 5.0 & keyboard
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: john W. Crawford 72337,2116

John,

Have you tried FIXSHIFT?  It is a program which is designed to fix some
shift-state problems on systems with specific problems such as this.  The file
is available in the MSL forum--search on "FIXSHIFT".

Let me know how things turn out.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9792 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  19:38:49
Sb: DOS5 & AT&T video
Fm: John Center 70431,11
To: General

Hi,

I have an at&t 6300, and I was told that DOS5 had video support for the
native 640x400 adapter.  I've looked for the sv400 and oliv graphic files,
but neither of these were on my upgrade disks.  Am I missing these files,
or are they hidden in an archive somewhere?

Thanks...   -John

#: 9793 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  19:45:38
Sb: #Just a few easy one???
Fm: Calvin Bolwerk 73520,357
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157

        I have a few questions that I imagine are easy to answer....

        I just installed 5.0 and I load HIMEM first and then EMM386.   When
EMM386 loads there is a message saying that this version is not compatibile
with HIMEM.  I just pulled this out of the box and......

        THe other question that I have is trying to get my mouse to load high.
DOS loads most of it in conventional and only .1K high.  I tried using both the
.SYS in CONFIG and just LOADHIGH mouse in autoexec.

        I really would appreciate any help that you could give me!!!!!


There are 2 Replies.

#: 9940 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  02:02:38
Sb: #9793-#Just a few easy one???
Fm: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621
To: Calvin Bolwerk 73520,357 (X)

Calvin,

    Are you sure that the version of HIMEM that is actually getting used is the
one that came with MSD5, or is it the one that came with Win3.  If the latter,
get rid of it and use the new one.  Hope this solves it.

Bill, PCWW.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9946 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  04:37:00
Sb: #9940-Just a few easy one???
Fm: Calvin Bolwerk 73520,357
To: Bill Hill, PC Wizard's W 70025,1621 (X)

Nope, it is the one that came with 5.0.  I don't have Windows.  THe message
says that this version may cause problems with EMM386.  I think that I will go
back to using QEMM.  I just wanted to try the "new" memory manager.


#: 10823 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:48:05
Sb: #9793-Just a few easy one???
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Calvin Bolwerk 73520,357

Calvin,

Sorry about the delay--we're working on a large volume of messages, trying to
reduce the backlog (hence the use of a Saturday evening).  Anyway, are you
entirely sure you are using the proper versions of both HIMEM and EMM386?  I
suggest making sure the files which are pointed to in your CONFIG.SYS file are
dated 04-09-91, with a size of 91,742 for EMM386.EXE, and 11,552 for HIMEM.SYS.
If these don't match, expand the files off of the original diskettes you
purchased.  These two programs were developed together, and should work
together.  Try just having the device statements for HIMEM and EMM386 in your
CONFIG, perhaps with the DOS= line if you are loading high.

The fact that you are getting anything at all to load into the UMB area
indicates that both HIMEM and EMM386 have been installed, so if you are getting
such a message, it apparently is superfluous.  One thing is special about the
mouse driver--it needs a contiguous block large enough to hold the file as it
appears on the disk--once loaded, it shrinks to about 10K.  If you don't have a
block big enough to hold the file, it won't load the whole thing high, even if
the block is large enough to hold the file after it shrinks.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9795 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  19:48:57
Sb: Beta Software Upgrade
Fm: Robert MacDonald 76477,2305
To: Todd Martin 76701,157 (X)

Todd, I just realized you also requested the disk size.  3.5 inch please.
Sorry.  Thanks Robert

#: 9797 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  20:04:50
Sb: EMM386.EXE
Fm: Steven R. Fundarek 73320,1333
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Well that's just a great tip, Bill!  Thanks.  I'm going to check that out right
now.  I never thought UAEs could be related to those.
Much appreciated.
-steven

#: 9901 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:45:56
Sb: #EMM386.EXE
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

David,

The location of your controller should be included in the documentation for the
controller.  Or,  you can locate it with a memory-mapping utility such as MSD,
Manifest, or ASQ.  Another option would be to contact the mfr, if your
documenation doesn't tell you which area is uses.

Yes, NOEMSJ was a typo.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader ]



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9967 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  08:46:05
Sb: #9901-EMM386.EXE
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Unfortunately, getting that information out of Adaptec is next to impossible if
you are not a vendor. :-(

David




#: 9902 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:46:04
Sb: EMM386.EXE
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Steven R. Fundarek 73320,1333

Steven,

The potential for trouble exists when the controller is not excluded from usage
as UMB space by EMM386.EXE.  If the area is included, conflicts can cause
trouble in your system ranging from disk problems to hangs.


Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9927 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:49:54
Sb: EMM386.EXE
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Gary J. Ellis 76702,350 (X)

Gary,

Thanks for the information--I'm going to see if my EMM386 load-time report is
the same as MEM /C on my next boot.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9798 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  20:09:07
Sb: #Windows/DOS/CIM problem
Fm: Lou Schmaus 72561,2633
To: all

Since upgrading one of our receptionist's PC's to DOS 5.0 last week,   I've run
into a curious problem. She uses the 5.0 shell and task switcher to pop back
and forth between programs (eventually I'll get her in Windows exclusively),
and I occasionally use her machine to pull up my mail and messages using
CompuServe Information Manager.  The problem comes when I start Windows from
the shell and try to start CIM. I get a message box stating that I can't start
this app from the SECOND occurance of Windows. This is the only app, Windows or
non-Windows,  where this message crops up. I can get around it by cancelling
the shell and running Windows from the DOS prompt, but it is a pain, and I
would like to run CIM in the backround while she run other stuff(WORD, EXCEL,
etc...) while I download my messages.

Any suggestions?

                                                                Lou


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10384 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  16:28:28
Sb: #9798-Windows/DOS/CIM problem
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Lou Schmaus 72561,2633

Try Disabling the task swapper in DOSSHELL (Alt-O-E) before running Windows
from DOSSHELL.

Eric. (Microsoft)



#: 9799 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  20:13:06
Sb: Pardox Protected 5.0
Fm: Matthew Ackerman 76011,2465
To: jared cameron 75556,1163 (X)

Jared,
    How much XMS are you now running with,  I currently have 2 meg of xms and 2
meg of EMS.  Worked fine this way until I tried using DOS 5.0 instead of DOS
3.3.

         Matthew Ackerman

#: 9803 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  20:20:25
Sb: #Wanted: reboot program
Fm: Pat Farrell 76467,2610
To: all

I need a program to automatically emulate the three-finger-salute and generate
a reboot. I assume that this is a three of four line debug program, or half a
dozen lines of masm, but I don't speak Intel assembler. I assume that the
program exists in some library on some forum, and all I need is a pointer in
the right direction.

Why crash a perfectly good system? I just added DOS 5 and Hyperdisk, and now
have a complex CONFIG/AUTOEXEC setup. I also have an older version of Norton
Utilities, and I don't want to run SD (speed disk) with all the device drivers
in UMB and TSRs loaded funny.

So my approach is to write a .BAT that copies the real CONFIG/AUTOEXEC to a
safe place, writes in a tiny, minimal version, and reboots so SD can be happy.
Then I simply need to copy the real CONFIG/AUTOEXEC back, and reboot again.

The batch files are trivial, but useing three fingers is crude. Can anyone
point me in the right direction?

Thanks



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9897 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:39:33
Sb: #9803-#Wanted: reboot program
Fm: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321
To: Pat Farrell 76467,2610 (X)

 You are in luck! Enter the following

"To create REBOOT.COM, enter the following at the DOS prompt:

     DEBUG                         <Return>
     N REBOOT.COM                  <Return>
     A 100                         <Return>
     MOV AX, 0040                  <Return>
     MOV DS, AX                    <Return>
     DS:                           <Return>
     MOV WORD PTR [0072], 1234     <Return>
     JMP FFFF: 0000                <Return>
                                   <Return>
     R CX                          <Return>
     11                            <Return>
     W                             <Return>
     Q                             <Return>

You now have a file called REBOOT.COM on the default disk.

To reboot,  just enter the name REBOOT at the DOS prompt, or in a batch file. "

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10019 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:51:54
Sb: #9897-#Wanted: reboot program
Fm: Bob Turner 72261,1120
To: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321 (X)

Does anyone know of an OS/2 version of reboot?  Where?



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10107 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  20:11:52
Sb: #10019-#Wanted: reboot program
Fm: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321
To: Bob Turner 72261,1120 (X)

 I don't know of any for os2. Rebboting a multi tasking operating system is a
litle bit less straight forward than a isngle user PC since there are other
tasks to be taken care of. I am sure there is someone that can tell us more.
dimitri P.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10115 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  21:28:49
Sb: #10107-#Wanted: reboot program
Fm: Bob Turner 72261,1120
To: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321 (X)

if it helps, os/2 will be finishing up a *.cmd file which has compacd'ed the
hard disk.





There is 1 Reply.

#: 10142 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  01:36:34
Sb: #10115-Wanted: reboot program
Fm: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321
To: Bob Turner 72261,1120 (X)

  Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with OS2 (yet) to help you on that
subject. The ROM BIOS provides an interrupt for rebooting. INT 19. That will
reboot a pc running DOS, but I don't know what the same call will do to a
machine running OS2. As of yet I don't have OS2 available to me, so I haven't
"played with it"

dimitri P.




#: 9804 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:29:24
Sb: #DOS 5 travails, Part 2
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Bill Mathews 72125,1361 (X)

Because DOS 5.00 can support up to 4 Primary DOS partions, but it will only let
you create one.....

Dev (speaking for Jen; who is it not here anymore)




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10439 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  20:05:41
Sb: #9804-DOS 5 travails, Part 2
Fm: Bill Mathews 72125,1361
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Dev, DOS 5.0 can support _4_ primary partitions? Guess I don't understand what
that means. 1) A primary DOS partition is the one that contains the system
files (IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS, and COMMAND.COM). 2) This partition must be the
active partition. 3) A hard disk can have only one active partition at a time.
You can use a partition that isn't designated as active, but you cannot start
an operating system from that partition. -- 1,2,& 3 are direct quotes from the
MS-DOS 5.0 manual. I don't see how that leaves a possibility for more than one
primary partition. **Bill**



#: 9806 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:29:37
Sb: #8237 ERROR
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Reggie Seay 70042,3502 (X)

Is that the full text of the message?

That is not a DOS message to my knowledge.  Can you duplicate it or has it only
happened once?  Do you have Dos 5.0 on the machine?  Is it always happening
from a certain point/application?

Dev the Inquisitive




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10453 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  21:23:57
Sb: #9806-8237 ERROR
Fm: Reggie Seay 70042,3502
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Yep, that's the full message, and it happens with every Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot.
Todd Martin has suggested to me that it's a TSR loading with config.sys or
autoexec.bat that is remapping the reboot. My configuration is DOS 5 based
using HIMEM and EMM386, on a DEC Pathworks 3.x network. I suspect one of the
network drivers, but I have not tested for this yet. None of the network
drivers caused this error prior to the DOS 5 upgrade. However, I am loading
some of the drivers differently. See ya, Reggie Seay

#: 9807 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:29:46
Sb: MS-DOS 5 problems
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Emilio Gonzalez 71520,2357

Two options off the top of my head:

1. Copy the files to your hard disk to a temporary directory(name it anything)

2. run setup from the directory that you copied the upgrade diskettes' contents
to.

What are the drive designations on your system?


Dev the Diligent



#: 9808 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:29:53
Sb: FORMAT not working
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Richard Carlson 76605,470 (X)

Please use the current FORMAT command that was supplied with DOS 5.0 and you
should be okay.  You are correct, there is acheck and interaction with the
kernel for any dos command to function....


Dev the Diligent



#: 9809 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:30:02
Sb: DOS5/386max/win3 print
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Christopher Unsicker 76244,1631 (X)

Try printing without 386 max, yet?  I would start eliminating components after
I had tried booting clean(without autoexec & minimum config, if any)...


Dev



#: 9810 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  20:30:06
Sb: Lost Keys / Windows
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: John Pickens 73157,2410 (X)

Maybe you need to contact them to find out what adjustments need to be made for
DOS5 operations...


Dev



#: 9811 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  20:30:15
Sb: Win Screen & DOS 5
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: John Pickens 73157,2410 (X)

I would call the autosig people and see what adjustments you need to make to
either the setup parameters or possibly the pif file......


Dev




#: 9812 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  20:30:16
Sb: #ANSI.SYS Problem
Fm: Theodore B. Dolmatch 72560,12
To: Bob Mosher 72426,773 (X)

The rambios (sys and com) will occasionally load in a area that some other
program, eg ansi, wants. what generally works for me is either to change its
position in config or use the com version in autoexec instead.  It isn't ansi;
it's rapidbio -- but it sure speeds up the video!
                                Ted Dolmatch

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10715 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  16:41:42
Sb: #9812-ANSI.SYS Problem
Fm: Bob Mosher 72426,773
To: Theodore B. Dolmatch 72560,12

Thanks for the response.  When I deleted DEVICE=RAMBIOS.SYS from my config.sys
file, I also deleted the problem. Bob

#: 9816 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:30:47
Sb: #Task swapping
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Frank Emens 72415,571 (X)

Make sure that you are not using FASTOPEN.  Make sure that you are not using
multiple EMS programs accessing the page frame simultaneously.  Make sure that
you are using the correct .GRB file.  Expand the type from your diskettes and
replace the dosshell.grb([video type].GR_ --> dosshell.grb). Let us know what
happens....


Dev the Dedicated




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10422 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  19:19:00
Sb: #9816-Task swapping
Fm: George Simon 76507,3040
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Has anyone encountered a message:
"Your program cnnot bw swapped out to disk. There is not enough space...."
I have over 50 MB left.


#: 10388 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  16:29:15
Sb: Task swapping
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Frank Emens 72415,571 (X)

Or, if you know a way to tell Ventura to repaint the screen, that will work.
You have correctly assessed the problem (the swapper is not saving all of the
special graphics info).  There is one other thing to try: from the DOSSHELL
program manager, go into File.Properties, click on the Advanced.. button and
ensure that you have the Video mode set to graphics.

Eric. (microsoft).



#: 9817 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:30:54
Sb: Escaping to command line
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Jeffrey Weiss 72070,1120 (X)

Sorry the shell is the common denominator for the switch... Dev



#: 9818 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:30:59
Sb: #Task Swapper Memory
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Don Goldberg 70206,76 (X)

 How much is ds + ts taking up on your system and how much memory do you
require with Ventura Publisher?


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10620 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  06:28:03
Sb: #9818-Task Swapper Memory
Fm: Don Goldberg 70206,76
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

       I do not know, exactly. I _do_ know that I have at least up to 600K
conventional memory available (when using a cache), and that is _not_ enough to
load Ventuar with DOS5 Task Swapper.
       I have not been able to figure out how to load any of my cache programs
high, but I guess I could try it with _no_ cache operating. That would give me
an additional 20-30K (?) ...but am not sure what that would accomplish.

#: 9819 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:31:08
Sb: LOGIMENU
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Bob Throckmorton 76030,606 (X)

I have talked to more than a few people that are using Logitech driver 5.01.
Are you sure that your problem is not elsewhere?  Could you provide more
details to your problem so that we may assist you?

Dev




#: 9820 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:31:16
Sb: DOS SHELL TASK SWAPPER
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: dan sturdivant 72331,261

This here is the place.  Try renaming the dosshell.vid fileto dosshell.[your
initials].  Tell us if that helps.


Dev




#: 9821 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:31:23
Sb: #unable to task switch
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045 (X)

Just because you have the capacity to task switch does not mean that you can
necessarily load another app if you do not have the memory to do it. Make sure
that you have enough left to start that program...


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10077 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  17:06:54
Sb: #9821-#unable to task switch
Fm: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

I have one meg of memory (RAM) and have DOS in high memory.  I am not sure that
I am not asking too much, but I would've thought that the 640 would be enough.
I want to load Quicken and Word Perfect but can't.  Do you think I don't have
enough memory?



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10389 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  16:29:23
Sb: #10077-#unable to task switch
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045 (X)

Do you have enough disk space free?  DOSSHELL needs to be able to create files
on your disk to save the information when you switch between applications.  Be
sure that you have a couple of megabytes of free disk space on the drive from
which you start DOSSHELL (or you can set the TEMP= environment variable to
point to a different disk drive).

Eric.



There are 3 Replies.

#: 10424 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  19:22:19
Sb: #10389-unable to task switch
Fm: George Simon 76507,3040
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

I'm having that problem.  Get message:
"There is not enough space on your disk..." Yet I have over 50 MB free!
Help!!!

#: 10703 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  15:17:43
Sb: #10389-unable to task switch
Fm: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406





#: 10705 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  15:17:56
Sb: #10389-unable to task switch
Fm: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

I have 10 megs free on the C drive where the DOS directory is.  That doesn't
seem to be the problem.  I will ask tomorrow when I call for a mouse driver
upgrade.

Thanks.



#: 10580 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:02:54
Sb: #10077-#unable to task switch
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045 (X)

Memory doesn't sound like your problem.  Try disabling Bill minder.  See if
that helps.  I have unconfirmed reports that Bill Minder might cause the
swapper to not operate.  Try it and let me know what happens.......



Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10702 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  15:17:39
Sb: #10580-unable to task switch
Fm: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

I don't have billminder running at all.  I disabled printcache, but that did
not help.  I can activate one program and can get back to dosshell, but when I
hit any key I am immediately returned to the program I just left.  I have no
difficulties running individual programs, it is just the multitasking that
seems impossible.


Thanks for the suggestion.



#: 9822 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:31:32
Sb: #unable to task switch
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Chris Hays[BPForum] 76703,4257 (X)

Could you be more specific?  If you are claiming a bug, please provide more
info so that it can be passed on to development.  Before I can do it, it has to
be at least consistent in the "environments" that you are referring to. Would
you provide the configurations of the environments involved.


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9976 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  09:38:51
Sb: #9822-#unable to task switch
Fm: Chris Hays[BPForum] 76703,4257
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Well discussions have been going on about it for two weeks, and as near as I
can ascertain, the ONLY environments that seem to work CORRECTLY with task
switching are extended ram 386, and even those may be inconsistant.

As to my specific case:  XT clone, NEC V30 processor (7.5mhz), CGA video, 640k
ram.

The specific problem appears to be in the video switching.  The program will
come up and run, but when you exit a program and return to it, the video is
messed up.  Sometimes the screen is just blank, sometimes it has horizontal
bars, sometimes the text is squished to one side. Occasionally the system locks
up completely forcing a reboot, but usually, if I know the keystrokes required
to exit the program, I can exit successfully and return to dosshell by typing
"in the blind".

This occurs with ANY program run with task switching.  The video is always
messed up after switching away from and then back to the program.
Interestingly, DOSSHELL itself always comes up with the video correct.  Does
this help any?  There have been many messages about this on here...you ought to
look at the whole thread.






There are 2 Replies.

#: 10390 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  16:29:34
Sb: #9976-#unable to task switch
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Chris Hays[BPForum] 76703,4257 (X)

Chris - sounds like your system didn't get setup with the correct
        DOSSHELL.* files!  Check page 45 of the Getting Started
        guide to see how to setup the right files.  Then install
        them (I suspect DOS 5.0 Setup misdetected the type of
        display you have).  Basically, what you need to do is:

               expand a:CGA.VI_  c:\dos\dosshell.vid
               expand a:CGA.GR_  C:\dos\dosshell.grb
               expand a:CGA.IN_  C:\dos\dosshell.cga

BTW: I have personally used DOSSHELL and the task swapper on
     PC XT's, AT's, clones, laptops, 386, 386sx, and 486.  The
     problems with swapping are usually related to either
     the wrong files (as above), insufficient disk space
     to create the swap file, or "near" compatible displays
     (eg not fully compatible, or using enhanced display modes).

Eric (microsoft).



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10984 S7/DOS Shell
    07-Jul-91  22:27:19
Sb: #10390-unable to task switch
Fm: Chris Hays[BPForum] 76703,4257
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

Ok I will give that a try.   A lot of people seem to be having this problem, so
my guess that if what you are saying is true, install may be where the problem
is.




#: 10579 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:02:46
Sb: #9976-unable to task switch
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Chris Hays[BPForum] 76703,4257 (X)

Make sure that you are using the correct .grb file.  If not, delete the
dosshell.vid file and see if that alleviates your condition......




Dev



#: 9823 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:31:42
Sb: #Dosshell won't load
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Terry O'Keefe 71271,525 (X)

Try expanding the files back out.  It sounds like the DOSSHELL got corruptted
on transfer to your hard disk.  Delete all the dosshell files in your dos
directory.

EXPAND from your original diskettes(disk #3 on 5.25" & disk #2 on 3.5") the
dosshell files:

dosshell.co_ --> dosshell.com dosshell.ex_ --> dosshell.exe dosshell.hl_ -->
dosshell.hlp [video type].gr_ --> dosshell.grb [video type].vi_ -->
dosshell.vid [video type].in_ --> dosshell.ini(use ega.in_ if the video type is
VGA)

Dev the Dedicated




There is 1 Reply.

#: 9998 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  10:28:58
Sb: #9823-#Dosshell won't load
Fm: Glen Farrell 75470,1474
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

I am running DOS 5.0 and netware. Once I login to my network the DOS shell
won't load. It seems that once tsr's are loaded that DOS shell won't work.


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10581 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:03:01
Sb: #9998-Dosshell won't load
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Glen Farrell 75470,1474

Make sure that you have read section 6.6 of the readme.txt file for speciifics
on dosshell operation in novell netware.  If that doesn't help, try disabling
your tsr's and reactivating them one-by-one......



Dev




#: 9828 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:32:19
Sb: #Dosshell won't load
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Terry O'Keefe 71271,525 (X)

BTW, do you have a monochrome monitor?

Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10060 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  15:21:06
Sb: #9828-Dosshell won't load
Fm: Terry O'Keefe 71271,525
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Yes, This is a classic IBM-XT....IBM Mono Monitor.

umm....I guess since it has been upgraded to an 286...it's not
so classic anymore.

Re: other message on the thread...on my machine there are no
TSR's

I havenot tried what you suggested as yet but will tomorrow and
get back to you.

Terry


#: 9824 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:31:52
Sb: #Exec WIN from DOS 5.0
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Roland Galli 76004,2167 (X)

Get rid of the pc-cache and ramdrive.  REM them out and see what happens. In
order to run Win3 in standard mode, make sure that you are not using emm386
with the ram or noems parameter.  This puts the machine into protected mode and
prevents you from being able to use Win3 in standard mode.


Dev the Diligent



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10135 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  23:59:00
Sb: #9824-Exec WIN from DOS 5.0
Fm: Roland Galli 76004,2167
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Dev - Thanks will try this out Roland

#: 9825 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  20:31:52
Sb: sstor problem?
Fm: Bob De Long 72357,73
To: Thomas R. Stokes 73770,3577 (X)

Tom...
        I realize it's too late to say this, but I, too, am using SpeedStor,
and didn't have any problems installing 5.0.  The APPNOTES.TXT file says to
update HARDRIVE.SYS with SSTOR.SYS *before* installing 5.0.  Don't know if I
would have had the same problem you did.  But we always have our backups,
right? ;)

Uhhhh, did I say backups?  How much were those floppies?

#: 9826 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:32:05
Sb: #AMI BIOS
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Roger Honacki 73617,122

I hate to interrupt, but let me break in with facts. Have you actually TRIED
all of the switches for high memory.  Microsoft has not ignored "millions" of
users.  The reason why there is not a specific switch for that BIOS is possibly
because one was not needed, eh?  You are absolutely correct.  MS does not care
what machine you are running, your hardware however does. Enabling the a20
handler depends on YOUR ARCHITECTURE(read: not your software).  This is a
critical thing to understand.  The way a computer needs its a20 line enabled
can be different within even a specific model from a specific manufacturer.
Yes, another variable is BIOS and combinations of computer and BIOS.  AMI & C&T
do not seem to need special handling, IN AND OF THEMSELVES.  There are 16
possibilities and it is possible you may not have found the appropriate switch
yet.  I have an AMI BIOS at home that was just spiffy with DOS 5.  If you give
me more details of what your symptoms are, I'll be more than happy to assist
you.....

Devlin Spearman Microsft Product Support Services




There is 1 Reply.

#: 9880 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  23:16:14
Sb: #9826-#AMI BIOS
Fm: John Deurbrouck 76530,371
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Devlin---
I would be glad to give you *my* symptoms.  I am running an AMI BIOS, dated
March 3, 1989.  This is a 386 25 MHz Soyo motherboard, with 8 Mb RAM on the
motherboard.  Video 7 VGA, generic MDA.  When I run with *no* AUTOEXEC.BAT
and the following two lines in CONFIG.SYS:
    DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS
    DOS=HIGH
my machine boots and runs fine.  But, when I press Ctrl-Alt-GreyMinus (the
key sequence I have to use to slow my clock speed) I never get function out
of the DOS prompt again.  That is, the keypresses are absorbed (Ctrl-Alt-Del
works and I can press over a dozen keypresses, then I get beeps which indicates
the buffer is full) but nothing shows up on the DOS command line, and I must
either reset or reboot to regain function.
    This was reported over two weeks ago and no response yet.  I am in
Mountlake Terrace, WA, so if your techs want to see a local machine that
manifests the bug, I can help.
    I don't have problems with DOS 3.3 or Compaq DOS 3.31, and if I don't
use HIMEM.SYS or don't include DOS=HIGH, I don't get the problem either.
    I am certain I am using the new HIMEM.SYS that came with DOS 5.
    Thanks in advance for your help.
---John Deurbrouck

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10582 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:03:11
Sb: #9880-#AMI BIOS
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: John Deurbrouck 76530,371 (X)

Have you tried the switch I mentioned earlier?  It should look like this:

device=c:\dos\himem.sys /m:x  [where x is a number between 1 and 16]

I would try 11, 12, 13, 8, 2, 1, and then any of the rest that are left. Your
problemm is that there is no communication between your BIOS and the kernel
which was in the HMA.  If you don't use the himemdriver, there is no a20 line
activity and no problem.  Yeah, your problem is in the a20 handler being used.
Try them and we will see what happens.....


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10819 S7/DOS Shell
    07-Jul-91  01:29:20
Sb: #10582-AMI BIOS
Fm: John Deurbrouck 76530,371
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Devlin---
   Well, I'm back.  Fortunately, since this problem is repeatable within
seconds of booting, I was able to test all 16 handlers quickly.  No luck.

None was able to load DOS high and prevent the problem reported (lockup
after Ctrl-Alt-GreyMinus).  Some simply wouldn't complete the boot process,
one (12) gave me a 'General Failure Accessing Device .....' message when
I pressed Ctrl-Alt-GreyMinus, others said HMA didn't exist and couldn't
load DOS high, and most just had the same old unfriendly behavior.
   What happens next?
---John

#: 9827 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:32:11
Sb: MD-DOS 5 Dosshell
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Penny Stith 73257,3300 (X)

Could you provide more details?  That's a little vague.  Is it a monochrome
monitor?

Dev



#: 9829 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:32:25
Sb: COPY AND MOVE
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: AARON W. 72760,2205

You have to use dual file lists and drag from one to the other....


Dev the Diligent



#: 9830 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:32:35
Sb: DOS 5 Install & FastBack
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Helen Feddema 73330,2404 (X)

ooooo, I think that I would really like to defer to my colleagues in the
Windows forum on the appropriate pif settings.  I'll tell you what I use for
TAPCIS: windowed, exclusive execution, text, low rez, hi rez monitor ports;
emulate text mode, retain video memory; 384 kb required, and everything else is
default setting. Hope it helps.  Check to make sure that if you are loading DOS
apps that require EMS that you have the ram parameter on emm386 if you're using
it in your config.sys file....


Dev the Diligent



#: 9956 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  06:55:43
Sb: #DOS 5 Install & FastBack
Fm: Helen Feddema 73330,2404
To: MIKE GREEN 71240,1130

FastBack 3.0 is out -- I got mine two days ago (they sent it by Airborne
Express).  It works fine with DOS loaded high.  Clip that coupon from InfoWorld
(or whatever) and send it in!



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10558 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:59:53
Sb: #9956-DOS 5 Install & FastBack
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Helen Feddema 73330,2404 (X)

Correct that.  I ousted hi-res and low-res.  I figure it is a text-based type
of program.....




Dev



#: 9831 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:32:41
Sb: WIN 3 & EMM386 & UMB
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Steve Belmont 72371,2137

Misha's suggestions mirror my own, Steve....

Dev



#: 9832 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:32:49
Sb: 5.0 to 360 K floppies
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Barry Pollack 71240,1304 (X)

You will have to exchange them, I'm afraid......

Dev



#: 9833 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:33:00
Sb: EMM386 in HIGH-RES
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Bryan Trandem 72577,235

'Tis no problem at all. We're all a little new with this package.  Take heart,
the Land of Milk and Honey is right around the bend...

Try: device=c:\dos\emm386.exe x=c800-d200 i=e000-efff ram/noems(not both)

Increase the range in the x= parameter by 100h at the end.  emm386 generally
starts off with c800 as the starting address, but check to make sure.  Type
emm386 at the command prompt and it will tell ya.

Let me know what happens and be sure next time to tel me what is in the
config.sys file, I'll need to know that info....


Dev the Dedicated



#: 9834 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:33:11
Sb: #5.00 INSTALL FAIL FIX!
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: S. Marc Kovner 76456,2331 (X)

I am glad that you were able to install.  It is true we are receiving far more
calls than we ever expected to.  I am concerned though, that you were not able
to get an answer to your dilemma here.  The techs here are working
diligently<g> to get through the hordes of messages here.  Who did you post the
message to, and when did you post it?  As we keep an archive, it should be able
to be tracked.  If someone is not getting the answer that they need, we want to
know about it.  BTW, your solution to installation is generally posted here by
one of us in answer to someone's question at least once a day.  Please let us
know if there is anything that we can do to assit you in the future.

Dev the Diligent




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10204 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  09:36:22
Sb: #9834-#5.00 INSTALL FAIL FIX!
Fm: S. Marc Kovner 76456,2331
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

I know Jennifer replied to my first message, and asked what was in my
config.sys and autoexec.bat.  She then said she was leaving the forum and
referred me to someone who sounds like Boxer, I think, first name could be
Dave.  He did not reply.  Do you have any ideas what the problem might have
been with my installation.  Everyting seems to be working great.  I even had no
problems using 5.00 with QEMM386.SYS.

QEMM386.SYS seems to manage memory faster that EMM386.  Is it just my
imagination, or is this true?

Thanks, Marc

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10594 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:04:56
Sb: #10204-5.00 INSTALL FAIL FIX!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: S. Marc Kovner 76456,2331 (X)

It can sometimes.  QEMM is an optimizer and if you are crammed for space, it
can be a good thing to have.  emm386 is not a standalone product and has to be
part of a reliable, total package.  It has to wrry about compatibility with all
hardware, QEMM does not have to.  They both are great products, but I prefer
emm386 because it is simpler as a package for someone who is not a memory
guru......





Dev



#: 9835 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:33:20
Sb: Missing memory
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Dick Rhindress 73547,2203 (X)

When you make a SMARTDRV devce statemnet in the config oyu are allocating
memory.  You have used 2mb for that ram cache(SMARTDRV).  You have
approximately 820K left of extended memory.  Your XMS line shows how much
memory is left for programs to use...

Dev the Diligent



#: 9836 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:33:27
Sb: RAMDRIVE SIZE
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Scott Weikle 70731,3317

You get the no-prize, Scott!!!!!  The documentation is indeed in error!  The
actual limit is 16 MB, more if you are using another XMS manager that could
provide more memory than himem.sys


Dev the Delighted




#: 9837 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:33:36
Sb: #Installation problems
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Joel Warren 71360,563 (X)

1. Check the syntax to make sure that everything is okay.  Also check to make
sure that the file is where the path in the config.sys says it is.

2. It probably is a problem with the a20 handler try them out see pp 611 of the
user manual for more details.

If you run into more problems let us know.....


Dev the Diligent




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10671 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  12:07:39
Sb: #9837-Installation problems
Fm: Joel Warren 71360,563
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

I found out several things (after contact with Intel).  One, If I load HIMEM
and SMARTDRIVE immediately after the INBRDPC.SYS in the config.sys, it works.
2)My machine (Leading Edge Model D) will not be able to create UMBs, because MS
never considered that a 386 would be used in a machine with an 8-bit bus.
Hence, UMBs are not supported in that configuration.  3)The hang-up problem, as
well as the cursor problem was caused by an incompatibility between 5.0 and
Sidekick, Version 1.56A.  Remove that and--voila!!        Thanks for the help,
Dev.

#: 9838 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:33:45
Sb: setup
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: alan radding 72320,2763

Which version of dos do you have?  If it is pre-4.0, keep in mind that in those
days drives did not have to be formatted to accept, read or write data.  If
this is the case you can backup your drives that you have data on and continue
with the install.  When finished restore your data.  Remember, partitioning a
disk with FDISK does not format the disk as well.  To format you must use the
FORMAT command.  Let us know if we can be of any more assistance to you....


Dev the Diligent



#: 9839 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:33:53
Sb: #DOS 5.0 Woes!?!
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Ross Contino 73327,1271 (X)

Rename the config & autoexec and see if you get the same error message. Where
in the bootup sequence are you receiving the message(i.e. what comes up just
before it on-screen)


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9941 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  03:33:01
Sb: #9839-#DOS 5.0 Woes!?!
Fm: Ross Contino 73327,1271
To: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200 (X)

Hello DEV! Well, if I rename or remove the config.sys and autoexec.bat files it
boots fine.  It will boot fine with the files I sent; however, I would like to
add two other directories to my path, and two set commands.  If I add so much
as one letter to the PATH...the entire boot hangs at the AUTOEXEC.BAT file
right before FASTOPEN.  It is at that time I get the message "All data about to
be lost.  Proceed? (Y/N)".  As I said, my current shell is 500.  I tried
increasing it to 2000 - NO DIFFERENCE! I would be eternally greatful to gain
some insight into this problem. Later, Ross Contino Fractured Femur/Amygdala
Software



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10562 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:00:18
Sb: #9941-#DOS 5.0 Woes!?!
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Ross Contino 73327,1271 (X)

Could you upload the config.sys and autoexec.bat?  That's a strange one.....


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10606 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  04:20:22
Sb: #10562-#DOS 5.0 Woes!?!
Fm: Ross Contino 73327,1271
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Hi Dev: I did!  It is in the original message and a second one I posted in the
General message category.  I simply have not been able to expand my
autoexec.bat.  Increasing the shell to 2000 does not help.  Any use of a SET
command cause the warning - "All Data about to be lost.  Proceed? (Y/N)".  Any
additional lines in the autoexec.bat (even if they are one time executed files
- not TSR's will crash the system without an error message. The same crash
occurs if I make the PATH more than 4 directories. Help!!!! Ross Contino

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10973 S2/Setup & Install
    07-Jul-91  20:05:33
Sb: #10606-#DOS 5.0 Woes!?!
Fm: Legare Coleman 76247,3673
To: Ross Contino 73327,1271 (X)

Ross:  Have you checked your system for a virus?  That message sounds like
something virus programs like to display.

 - Legare




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11002 S2/Setup & Install
    08-Jul-91  04:15:45
Sb: #10973-DOS 5.0 Woes!?!
Fm: Ross Contino 73327,1271
To: Legare Coleman 76247,3673 (X)

Hi Legare: My system is virus free.  I believe the EMM386 is overwriting the
BIOS some how.  Hence, when I reach a certain length to my autoexec.bat file,
it extends into that area of Bios.  I don't know. Later, Ross

#: 9840 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:34:03
Sb: inst without a or b drve
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Dirk Spiers 100012,1330 (X)

Try installing to floppy disks on the machine with the hard dick +
floppies(desktop pc) using the setup /f command and copy them into a directory
on your desktop pc.  Laplink them over and use whatever laplink trick you need
to to get the system files into the boot sector.  Good Luck and happy
Computing!


Dev the Diligent



#: 9843 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:34:34
Sb: Selecting UMB's
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Brad Nicholas 70152,1142

Could you be more specific?

Dev




#: 9844 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:34:42
Sb: to 4.01 disaster
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: all

Try installing to floppy disks with the setup /f command.  Obviously boot from
a 2.1 system diskette first.  Then use the SYS c: command from the dos 5
disketets that you create after you rebbot once more with your newly created
dos5 diskettes.  Try it and tell me what happens...


Dev the Diligent




#: 9845 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:34:47
Sb: MS-DOS 5.0 Installation
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Jonathan Lehrer 71311,2274

Please tell us what type of hard disk drive it is and how your hard disk drive
was partitioned.  Be sure to read Section 2.x of the README.TXT file on your
original diskettes...

Dev the Diligent



#: 9846 S5/Networks
    03-Jul-91  20:34:56
Sb: Loading NET5.COM High
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Steve Belmont 72371,2137

 Or is it the other way around<g>




#: 9847 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:35:01
Sb: Losing Video in Shell
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Larry Beck 72240,2430 (X)

 Try renaming the dosshell.vid file Dooshell works dandy without one....

Dev



#: 9848 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:35:09
Sb: C:\DOS\DOS\DOS\DOS\DOS>
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Eric Hake 72460,2512

Looks like it got corrupted in transfer del the Doss helland get rid of all
those directories then reload the shell files....



Dev



#: 9849 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:35:18
Sb: unable to task switch
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Dave Marsh 72510,2326 (X)

 is it possible that the programs in question are both using EMS?  Is fastopen
being used, if so, kill it...


Dev




#: 9850 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:35:23
Sb: unable to task swap
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Dave Marsh 72510,2326 (X)

 Now try killing the dosshell.vid file and you may have some relief.....


Dev



#: 9852 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  20:35:38
Sb: Message #7187
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Russ Wilner 76256,3545

Incorrect.  I believe your concern has been addressed.  Please ask a
question.....


Dev




#: 10497 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  01:51:32
Sb: Message #7187
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Patrick McDermott 76176,511

Unfortunately the reality of the forum environment on CIS prevents the
dissemination of info any other way.  If you have a suggestion, we'd be glad to
hear it......



Dev



#: 9853 S9/Shareware (MS-DOS)
    03-Jul-91  20:35:45
Sb: MS DOS 5.0 Upgrade
Fm: C. Devlin Spearman 76711,200
To: Terence Thomas 72361,3574

Go to your local retailer and buy it(egghead, waldensoftware, etc.)


Dev




#: 9854 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  20:40:47
Sb: DOS 5 and Disk Caching
Fm: Keith Ledbetter 72240,1221
To: John Lortscher 76610,30 (X)

John,

  Wow...that IS weird (the Norton transfer speeds).  No, I doubt that getting
CORETEST would help you out -- if there would have been a big difference,
Check-It would have reported it.  On some machines, the difference between XT:-
and XT:+ is VERY minimal (eg: <100KB /sec). Now, aren't you glad I started you
down this totally confusing road? ;-)

Keith

#: 9855 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:47:31
Sb: #Upgrade problems
Fm: Gene Miller 70253,1660
To: all

I ran hard disk backup with PCTools Ver 6.  Then I loaded MS-DOS 5.0 and
PCTools Ver 7.  Now I have so many problems I've decided to simply wipe it all
out and reload all my software as if it's a newly purchased computer.  I think
what it's doing is getting lots of conflict from the previous software.  Anyway
I have all my important files on floppy so I'm ready to begin.  I printed the
report that PCTools runs when you select "System Information" so I think I have
everything on hard copy I'll need to tell the various prompts as I load.  Any
suggestions?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9893 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  01:19:47
Sb: #9855-Upgrade problems
Fm: Mike Pritchard 73210,3133
To: Gene Miller 70253,1660

You have my sympathy Gene.  I tried DOS 4 about 12 months ago.  Took a couple
of hours to get it installed, and then an entire weekend to undo the mess once
I found out what didn't work (just about everything.)  I upgraded to DOS5 a
couple of weeks ago, with apparently no problem, so today I tried to
repartition to one disk.  Now my machine is not very happy - strange keyboard
responses, and 'Incorrect DOS version' for many programs.  I don't think I can
relate it to the installation of PCTools - which I've also been doing over the
last couple of days.  I may take your approach.

Good luck Mike (and I have to go through the same thing at home - yuk)



#: 9856 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:47:42
Sb: #5.0 installation problem
Fm: steve plafker 72736,1472
To: all

        I have a problem trying to install MSDOS 5.0.
        I have an Epson Equity LT with two 3 1/2" disk drives. I use copies of
the upgrade disks provided by Microsoft.
        I boot up with MSDOS 3.2, put disk number 1 in the A drive, and type
install/f. The installation starts but cannot seem to recognize disk number 1
in the A drive. I.e, it keeps asking for me to put that disk in the drive, no
matter how many times I press ENTER with the disk in the drive.
        Suggestions?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10564 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:00:34
Sb: #9856-5.0 installation problem
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: steve plafker 72736,1472 (X)

Are you putting the DOS5 disk in?   I assume that you are using setup /f not
install /f(there is no such command).  Try disabling all tsr's, caching
programs and the like before you run it.  If that doesn't help, do you have the
DRIVPARM available with your version of DOS?  If so, use it to toggle &
disable/enable the changeline support of the floppy drive you are working
with......





Dev



#: 9857 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  20:50:45
Sb: #EMM386.EXE & Extended
Fm: S. Dunham Wilson 70632,256
To: Barry C. Dowell 76244,3052

Barry,

What is the L= parameter and how is it used with emm386.  I can't find
anything about it in the Users' Manual.  Thanks.

Dunham+


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10824 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:48:11
Sb: #9857-EMM386.EXE & Extended
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: S. Dunham Wilson 70632,256

Dunham,

The L= paramater on EMM386.EXE is used to ensure that a specific minimum value
of extended memory is available after loading EMM386.  The documentation should
be on page 607 of your User's Guide.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9858 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  20:51:08
Sb: DOS 5 & Windows
Fm: S. Dunham Wilson 70632,256
To: Scott Diamond 72717,1611

Scott,

Do you have WINA20.386 file in your root directory?  Windows won't run
without it.  You may have moved it and not told Windows where it is.

Try putting DEVICE=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE as the first line in your Config.sys
file which allows different program versions to run with DOS 5.0.  Try the
line DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE AUTO NOEMS.  Windows will emulate the EMS for
anything asking for it.  AUTO tells it to do that, I think.  It works for me.
I just think the 1024 after EMM386.EXE could be the trouble.  Why do you put
that in?  Has it something to do with DM?

I'm sorry for sending this so late.  You're probably up and running, at least
I hope so.

Dunham+



#: 9860 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  20:53:28
Sb: DOS 5 Install & FastBack
Fm: Dennis Allen 74035,1073
To: MIKE GREEN 71240,1130 (X)

Depends on how old your DM was.  Version 4.0 and beyond should be no problem.
But read the tech notes.  You need to EXPAND the DM driver and overlay files
before installing DOS 5.0.  A DM earlier than 4.0 should be upgraded and
installed...Dennis


#: 9862 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  20:56:58
Sb: download problem
Fm: Robert Fitzgerald 73577,222
To: sysop (X)

Mouse5.zip in lib0 will not download. I have no problem with other files

#: 9865 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  21:09:39
Sb: not needed files for XT?
Fm: Bill Childs 71211,447
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Thanks I thought I'd been lost!  I tried debug and I didn't recognize anything.
Maybe I was hasty.  I'll give another look see.



#: 9866 S3/Hardware Issues
    03-Jul-91  21:14:54
Sb: #*SLOW* Hard Drive
Fm: CHUCK FRYER 76635,1461
To: Chuck Fryer

I have an IBM-AT, 6MHz, circa 1984.  ROM BIOS date is 1/10/84. Upon installing
MS-DOS 5.0, my hard disk reads slowed down significantly.  This system has run
fine on DOS 3.1 and 4.01. When I "uninstall," everything returns to normal
speed. This occurs regardless of my config.sys or autoexec.bat -- even when
configured purely "plain vanilla."

The drive is a 20 Meg MFM -- original equipment.

Any ideas?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9985 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  09:41:26
Sb: #9866-#*SLOW* Hard Drive
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: CHUCK FRYER 76635,1461 (X)

What does your config.sys say about buffers?

Are you using Smartdrive?




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10373 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  16:26:45
Sb: #9985-*SLOW* Hard Drive
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill's question was good - especially if you're using Quarterdeck's BUFFER's
program (it is incompatible with DOS 5).  Also, it is not necessary if you have
1Meg, since DOS puts the buffers into the HMA with DOS.

Eric. (Microsoft)



#: 9867 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  21:27:04
Sb: #DOS5 and EMM386
Fm: robert mcadams 70143,2705
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200 (X)

Any idea why the following happens?

Config.Sys:

DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE noems 128 DOS=HIGH,UMB

AutoExec.Bat

PC-CACHE /SIZEXT=3072

I get the following sillyness message: EMM386 PRIV OPERATION ERROR #00
Deactivate and (C)ontinue or (R)eboot

I cant seem to figure this one out. There are no listings of error messages
like this that I can find...

Running a MICRONICS 386-33 with 8mb of memory. I have a 3mb ram drive a
pc-cache set at 3mb, so I should easily have at least another 1mb+ for
EMM386... Any Ideas?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10565 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:00:45
Sb: #9867-DOS5 and EMM386
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: robert mcadams 70143,2705

Get rid of the pc-cache unless your package says it is compatible with dos5. I
believe that would be version 7.  Separate your config.sys into the following:

device=c:\dos\himem.sys dos=high,umb device=c:\dos\emm386.exe noems


That should do it for you.  Mem command should tell you whether or not ms-dos
is resident in the high memory area.  If it is, fine. If it isn't, read pp 611
of your manual and use one of the machine switches(there are 16 of them so you
may be trying things out for a while until you find your optimal setup......


Dev



#: 9870 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  21:43:44
Sb: #dos 5.0 compatibility
Fm: Cary Raffle 76477,2125
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

SCREEN GARBLING PROBLEM WITH DOS 5.0 I am having an intermittent problem with
my screen getting garbled when I use any of the dos 5.0 progr.  It looks like
eveything is written in a strange language I see this when I boot up, the type
turns blue and garbles, and within programs. I have called Microsoft and they
suggest it might by the EGA driver for my SONY cpd1302, and I am waiting for
SONY to call me back with information.  My computer is a Leading Edge d2/286
with an AST 6Pack added on.  Has anyone else experienced and solced a similar
problem, or any ideas while I wait?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9952 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  05:56:45
Sb: #9870-#dos 5.0 compatibility
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Cary Raffle 76477,2125 (X)

I don't know anything about video problems.  However, I can ask a few
questions.

1. Have you tried running DOS 5 with a minimized config.sys and autoexec.bat?
That is, does this problem occur even when config.sys and autoexec.bat say
almost nothing?  I suggest that you use NO autoexec.bat whatever and that you
reduce config.sys to only three lines: buffers=15, files=60,
device=(path)\himem.sys.  If you still have the same problem with this
super-simple configuration, there may be something wrong with your ega driver.
However, you may find that the super-simple configuration eliminates the
problem.  If the problem goes away, it probably arises from something that is
now in your config.sys or autoexec.bat -- for example, a memory conflict.

2. You describe the problem as "intermittent".  Have you noticed anything
consistent about the circumstances in which it occurs?  Is it possible that
there might be a loose connection?  Have you removed and reinstalled the video
card?  (That is, pull out the card, wipe the contacts with a cloth, make sure
there are no loose parts, and then reinstall it.)

3. You say "any DOS program".  Do you mean that the problem occurs now when you
run programs like 1-2-3 or WordPerfect that used to operate properly before you
installed DOS 5?  Or do you mean that the problem occurs when you run programs
that come with DOS 5, such as DOSShell?




There is 1 Reply.

#: 9954 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  06:36:24
Sb: #9952-dos 5.0 compatibility
Fm: Cary Raffle 76477,2125
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Thanks Bill.  I will try running a clean autoexec.bat, and see what happens.
I'ver had the problem at boot-up, in the programs that come with DOS like
editor, and in PC tools.  I haven't used anything else enoug to knoe if I have
problems elsewhere. To give a better example, when I boot up, the words
Copyright Microsoft Corporation scroll then trun blue then turn into Coprac'p
C! Macrosobp Corporapaon. and the same thing happens to the rest of the screen.
retty strange.

#: 9871 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  21:50:28
Sb: #emm386/Borland/windows
Fm: Peter Roberts 75140,1032
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

  Nate,
  Sorry if I didn't make myself clearer on this: 1) I'm not using EMM386, only
HIMEM.SYS (and optionally Soft-ICE) 2) When using Soft-ICE, I ALWAYS place it
FIRST in CONFIG.SYS 3) I know what the error means ("Can't control A20").

  I was after the 'correct' /machine: option to use on HIMEM.SYS for a 486
25Mhz using Opti Chipset. All the doc says about /machine: are some examples of
specific models, but ala, no general guidelines.

  Thanks for the reply(s); I'll be trying various /machine: options (and I'll
snoop thru HIMEM.SYS for any 'unlisted' machine names).

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10067 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  16:08:28
Sb: #9871-emm386/Borland/windows
Fm: Danny Thorpe 71510,3312
To: Peter Roberts 75140,1032 (X)

Peter,

  I got 5.0's Himem.sys to work with /machine:11.  I, too, have a 486/25 with
AMI bios and the Opt-B cache controller chipset.  I think the msdos 5 readme
file describes /machine:11 as 'AT alternate #1' and 12 is 'AT alternate #2'.

-Danny




#: 9872 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  21:53:39
Sb: #FB+ 2.10/DOS 5
Fm: Thomas Berrang 76607,433
To: Jon Yiesla 75226,1073 (X)

Jon!

Did you try LOADFIX with FB+? See the appnotes on your DOS 5 directory. Works
for me.

Thomas




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10051 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  13:59:05
Sb: #9872-#FB+ 2.10/DOS 5
Fm: Jon Yiesla 75226,1073
To: Thomas Berrang 76607,433 (X)

Yes, tried Loadfix and that didn't seem to do much.
Jon

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10475 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  00:36:21
Sb: #10051-FB+ 2.10/DOS 5
Fm: Mike Henry 76376,157
To: Jon Yiesla 75226,1073 (X)

This probably isn't relevant since FB presumably worked OK before yo
installed DOS 5, but I had similar symptoms to yours (slow speed on backups)
on my ALR 486/25 until I slowed the CPU down a notch via a keyboard toggle.
Sped FB back up to around 3 megs/min in compressed mode.


#: 10353 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:06:30
Sb: #FB+ 2.10/DOS 5
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jon Yiesla 75226,1073 (X)

Jon,

I congratulate you on your t-shooting skills! However, you might want to keep
EMM386 in and one by one start loading things high to see if that makes a
difference. It still could be one device loaded high as opposed to EMM386
itself that is causing the slow down. As an initial test, it would be easy to
keep all the devicehighs and loadhighs, EMM386 and Himem, and simply change
DOS=HIGH,UMB to DOS=LOW. That would prove it.

It could also be the wrong switch for Himem.sys. Try them all.

It could be a certain range in the Upper Memory Area that should be overwritten
that is being overwritten. Try excluding some ranges.

Anyway, try these... and get back to me,

Thanks,

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10449 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  21:03:23
Sb: #10353-FB+ 2.10/DOS 5
Fm: Jon Yiesla 75226,1073
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Well, in my original testing I had tried just taking our selected items with no
luck.  So I removed everything from the autoexec.bat and config.sys that
related to anything DOS 5, including DOS high,  all loadhigh and device high as
well as emm386.  Then I started loading them back in.  FB+ worked OK.  Then I
loaded the setver device, still OK,  then the himem.sys, still OK.  Then I
loaded the emm386 and that was it.  At this point I only have those three
things that are DOS 5 specific things loaded.  If you think that there is still
any merit in doing some more experimenting, I am willing to test it.  Let me
know..  BTW, talking to the Fifth Generation people here on CIS, I think that
they apparently have a 2.11 version that can be run with loadfix and that will
do the trick.  Also, I think that version 3.0 that just came out will run OK
with my setup.
Jon

#: 9873 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  22:07:32
Sb: #Install to !C:
Fm: Peter Roberts 75140,1032
To: all

  Just FYI, I've  already worked-around the problem: SETUP won't let you change
the DRIVE letter when specifying where DOS files are located. Add to that the
fact that it ignored the SHELL and PATH pointing at D:\DOS, it insisted it was
C:\DOS (nonexistant dir).
  TO oblige, I shuffled stuff off C: (32Meg, 31+ of which is occupied by OS/2
1.3EE), Installed and reshuffled things.
  I guess there was a circumstance that got overlooked.

  Again, no rush as I am UP & RUNNING.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10566 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:00:52
Sb: #9873-#Install to !C:
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Peter Roberts 75140,1032 (X)

I betcha the system files were on the c: drive though, weren't they?  That's
what the setup program is looking for.......


Dev



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10731 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  18:39:34
Sb: #10566-Install to !C:
Fm: Peter Roberts 75140,1032
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

  The SYSTEM files have to be on drive C:, I'll can't deny that. BUT... it was
asking about the DOS files!
  Needless to say, when it actually installed, those files were on C: and just
as quickly migrated back to D: <grin>
  Given that OS/2 1.3EE takes 30Meg+ (of course I 'YES"-ed many an option)
you'd think they'd have thought about the possiblity.
  Ever Wiser,

#: 9875 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  22:09:31
Sb: #ECHO OFF DEFAULT
Fm: ROBERT STEPHAN 76106,3710
To: ALL

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A PATCH TO MS-DOS 5.0 TO MAKE ECHO OFF THE DEFAULT?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10825 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:48:20
Sb: #9875-ECHO OFF DEFAULT
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: ROBERT STEPHAN 76106,3710 (X)

Robert,

The default for ECHO is on.  This is not modifiable, except by using the ECHO
OFF command from the command prompt.  The only way I can think of to change the
default is to modify COMMAND.COM itself, which is a difficult and potentially
dangerous process which is not supported by Microsoft, and technically violates
the agreement on the envelope for the diskettes.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9876 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  22:12:36
Sb: #UNDO IBM BASICA
Fm: ROBERT STEPHAN 76106,3710
To: ALL

I NEED A PROGRAM THAT WILL "UNCOMPILE" AN IBM BASICA PROGRAM THAT WAS NOT SAVED
USING THE "A" PARAMETER.  COULDN'T FIND IT IN IBMFF BUT I KNOW SUCH A THING HAS
BEEN DONE.  THANKS.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10286 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  11:47:29
Sb: #9876-UNDO IBM BASICA
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: ROBERT STEPHAN 76106,3710 (X)

..IBM included a new version of BASICA in IBM DOS 5, if you or someone you know
has it.



#: 9877 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  22:21:35
Sb: #MSCDEX.EXE for DOS5?
Fm: Doug Graybill 76044,1344
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157

I have a version of MSCDEX.EXE dated 10/15/90 which has been running on an IBM
PS/2 80 under PC-DOS 3.3 with a NEC CDR-35 drive. I recently upgraded to DOS
5.0 and when I try to load MSCDEX it tells me that I have the wrong version of
DOS.  Is there an update?? I can be reached at home on Friday at 407-241-6940.
Thanks.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10074 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  16:45:31
Sb: #9877-MSCDEX.EXE for DOS5?
Fm: Andrew J. Glass 70105,440
To: Doug Graybill 76044,1344

Doug:

Using the DOS 5.0 SETVER utility will solve your problem.

- Andy




#: 9878 S4/Compatibility
    03-Jul-91  22:26:27
Sb: #DOS5+Win3 -> Reboot
Fm: Trevor Garland 72730,514
To: Jeff Wickman 76701,160

I have an Exerex Aamazing 486/25 now running DOS 5.0. I have installed
Windows3.0 without changing any .INI files. I have changed (through windows
SETUP) the computer to be an Everex Step 386/25.

My problem is that within 1 second to 2.5 minutes of starting Windows it either
reboots the PC (usually) or drops back to DOS (infrequently).  What can I do
aside from going back to DOS 4.01?

The BIOS is AMI with rev. date 09/08/90-K9. Supposedly there is a replacement
coming, but nothing is yet available.

My CONFIG.SYS is:
files= 60
buffers=20
stacks=0,0
DEVICE=c:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
DEVICE=c:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
device=C:\dos\smartdrv.sys 2048 1024
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE 5328 /y=c:\dos\emm386.exe
DEVICE=C:windows\mouse.sys
DOS=HIGH

My autoexec.bat is:
cho off
PROMPT $p$g
SET COMSPEC=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM
SET PATH=C:\WINDOWS;C:\DOS;D:\PCTOOLS;D:\FW3;D:\WP51\
set TEMP=C:\WINDOWS\TEMP

  Thanks!!

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10385 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  16:28:37
Sb: #9878-DOS5+Win3 -> Reboot
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Trevor Garland 72730,514

From CONFIG.SYS: 1) Try removing the STACKS=0,0 line 2) If that doesn't work,
try removing the EMM386 line. 3) Try using different /machine switches on the
HIMEM line (start with
   1 and go up).

Eric.



#: 9879 S7/DOS Shell
    03-Jul-91  22:29:21
Sb: Task Switcher w/123 2.2
Fm: Dale Sydnor 76064,3326
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202 (X)

Just came from a client site with major dissatisfaction re:DOS 5.0 task
switcher.  Using a Compaq Deskpro 320e with 5MB, HIMEM, EMMSYS 2084 RAM, DOS
High and UMB, SmartDrive, and RAMDISK (same symptoms on an AST 320SX Notebook
with 2MB, HIMEM, EMM386 1024 RAM and AST 286-10 with 640K RAM).  Trying to task
switch Lotus 1-2-3 Release 2.1, Lotus Agenda 2.0, MS Word 5.0, and ACT!, 1-2-3
always trashes data when switched out and back.  Tried using 386MAX 5.11 on
Deskpro with same results.  Sometimes it is so bad that the system hangs.  Jeez
guys,  there is no mention in the manuals about any special considerations and
at least 3 of these programs are definitely mainstream.

I checked the threads here and found some mention re: Expanded RAM and task
switcher problems.  I hope this issue isn't going to turn into a PC-DOS 4.00
type public relations thing.  It is reasonable to assume that a fair number of
business types with 386's are going to be using 1-2-3 and Agenda and want to
switch between them.

Any suggestions? (disabling EXPANDED RAM is NOT an option with these clients)

#: 10877 S7/DOS Shell
    07-Jul-91  11:00:47
Sb: Task Switcher w/123 2.2
Fm: Dale Sydnor 76064,3326
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

OK, I think I understand what you are saying in your reply, let me paraphrase
to be certain.  "Programs that use expanded memory cannot be task switched with
the MS-DOS Task Switcher."

If that is the case the manual should make that very clear and give examples of
the programs in question.  Lotus 1-2-3 and Agenda, as far as I know, do not
provide a method for disabling use of expanded memory.  Therefore a list of
programs popular programs such as these should be included in the manual (or as
an addendum or read.me file).

I guess the idea would be to run multiple DOS sessions under Windows 3.0 to
accomplish this task.  Given the complexity of using Windows in a network
environment, this is not an optimum situation.  I will have to investigate
Software Carousel again.

Thanks for your reply (and for being more civil than I was at the time I wrote
the inquiry).

-= Dale =-

#: 9884 S2/Setup & Install
    03-Jul-91  23:51:13
Sb: Installing from drive B:
Fm: Gary Docherty 76364,614
To: John F. Granatino 76615,1510 (X)

John: I think I could copy the files from the Support 3.5" disk to the Startup
3.5" disk, etc., i.e., combine the files to get four 3.5" floppies. I posted a
help message in the MSOFT sugesstion/problem section, but no response (yet).
Maybe my mess scrolled away.

Who has a packing list for files installed to four 3.5" floppies????
HELP...


#: 9885 S1/General
    03-Jul-91  23:54:20
Sb: Memory Manager for '286'
Fm: Brian Hinkle 71477,612
To: Vernon G. Box 75506,2113 (X)

Thanks for the response Vernon. I've got it all working now. Just took some
trial and error and a lot of advice from people like you. Thanks again.Brian
Hinkle, Anaheim, Ca



#: 10121 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  22:17:00
Sb: Memory Manager for '286'
Fm: Peter Guest 100014,1320
To: Steve Pacenka 72155,1325 (X)

Steve, you've confirmed the conclusion that I'd been coming to. Very great
appreciation. I guess a megabyte of memory is the answer and rather cheaper,
though less desirable (!) than a 386. I guess it's off to check the prices.
Peter




#: 10231 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  10:50:14
Sb: Memory Manager for '286'
Fm: Howard S. Friedman 72261,474
To: Peter Guest 100014,1320 (X)

Peter, sorry, I don't remember the question.  I *do* know that on *my* machine,
the new HIMEM.SYS 2.77 doesn't work well, if at all.  The old HIMEM.SYS 2.60
from Windows 3.0 works fine.  As for the 384K, it seems to depend on whose book
you're reading.  Some people call that Upper Memory, some call it High Memory.
Inm either case, unless you have a 386 (I don't), you seem to be able to use
onlythe area from C0000 to DFFFF, or 8 16K page frames, where you can store
devices and certain programs.  In my case, my video card loads from COOO to
C3FF, or 1.5 page frames, so I am limited to 6 pages or 96K of High Memory
Area. I don't trust myself to fool around with the HIMEM.SYS /int switch!
Howard

#: 10408 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  17:35:44
Sb: #Memory Manager for '286'
Fm: Peter Guest 100014,1320
To: Steve Pacenka 72155,1325 (X)

Right, 1 mb went in today and indeed I now have Manifest showing 626k free and
about 117k free shadow ram. Thanks. Two more questions, please. What are the
advantages of QRAM 1.01? Can I really force my Neat board to split the shadow
and expanded?  Peter.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 11044 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  08:22:26
Sb: #10408-Memory Manager for '286'
Fm: Steve Pacenka 72155,1325
To: Peter Guest 100014,1320

Peter,

Congrats on success.

QRAM 1.01 is for better compatibility with DOS 5 and Windows 3.  (I have mine
on order, so this is partly supposition.)  There is a new QEXT.SYS driver, more
compatible with Windows' Standard mode, that replaces HIMEM.SYS and which is
loadable into shadow ram via LOADHI, which HIMEM is not.  This version of QEXT
is available here in PCVENB Lib 1.  The 1.01 Manifest is compatible with DOS 5;
the old one hangs.  Since I am using the old 1.00 QRAM.SYS and old LOADHI's
successfully with DOS 5, perhaps only the QEXT and Manifest are changed. And
since your Manifest works, you must already have QRAM 1.01.

On my NEAT 386SX board, when there is more than 1Mb of total memory installed
the 384K shadow ram can only be used for shadowing ROMS and for QRAM/QEMM high
memory.  It may also be disableable, but that's not much use. If this also
applies to your setup, perhaps the best use of this 384K is to leave it as you
have it -- QRAM-controlled high memory plus ROM shadowing. Some memory is
wasted in this setup, especially if you don't need ROM shadowing.  I get 144K
total high memory (with QEMM) and lose the other 240K since I don't use ROM
shadowing.

-- regards, SP



#: 9887 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  00:06:39
Sb: #SMARTDRV.SYS & BIG DRIVE
Fm: Robert B. McCollum 75775,1633
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd:
     I have read many messages on this SIG (I have all the traffic dating back
to the day you opened it) concerning SMARTDRV.SYS and the incompatible
partition problem.  I hit this problem today at work when my boss tried to
upgrade his machine to MS-DOS 5.0.
     Under the DOS 4.01, everything worked fine.  After the upgrade,  he was
unable to get WINDOWS to run properly and was having a fit.   After checking
everything out, I found that SMARTDRV gave the incompatible message and refused
to load.   Since SMARTDRV didn't load, and there was no SCSI driver loaded,
WINDOWS failed to operate properly.  We use the ADAPTEC 1542B controller.
After loading AHA1540.SYS I was able to get it up and running WINDOWS, but we
still have no SMARTDRV running.  His only other partition on the disk is UNIX.
     There is a BIG problem here.  Many of the newer high capacity hard drives
DO have more than 1024 cylinders and are NOT SUPPORTED by the SYSTEM BIOS, but
ARE supported by the BIOS Extension on the disk controller.  i.e. a translation
of some kind.
    Q. Does the BIOS extension qualify for use of the /p switch
       to allow the new SMARTDRV to load?
    Q. If loaded with the /p switch, does that cache function properly?  I've
seen traffic here that suggests that it        doesn't function properly and
merely occupies space.
    Q. Since SMARTDRV is dealing ONLY with a DOS partition which was
       created with FDISK, and not having anything to do with the
       UNIX partition, why does it give a rats behind about a slice
       of the disk that it is not, and should not, have anything
       to do with?
How can you deny customers the use of SMARTDRV simply because they happen to
have a UNIX partition on their disk?  Please Todd, I need official (Microsoft
stands behind them) answers.

                                    Bob McCollum
                                    UNISYS Corp.
                                    McLean, VA.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10826 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:48:34
Sb: #9887-SMARTDRV.SYS & BIG DRIVE
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Robert B. McCollum 75775,1633 (X)

Robert,

SMARTDRV gives that message and refuses to load whenever it detects a nonDOS
partition.  Your UNIX partition qualifies as such.  The reason the warning is
displayed is that since MS-DOS doesn't recognize it, it could be a partition
written by software such as Disk Manager, SpeedStore, etc.  If this were true,
there would be potential danger if the software was used to bypass the 1024
cylinder limit.  Using the /P option would eliminate this message, and since
you wouldn't be accessing the UNIX partition, there wouldn't be any problems on
that partition.

SMARTDRV should not have any problem with your system if the hardware is doing
the sector translating, and not software.

As a sidenote, there have been some troubles with systems using SCSI
controllers and accessing UMB's.  If you are having any difficulties using
UMB's you may want to contact Adaptec for a special driver, and also be sure to
load SMARTDRV low.


Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9890 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  00:30:49
Sb: DOS 5.0 AND QEMM
Fm: William J. Ellis 70701,2047
To: James McDaniel[ZiffNet] 72241,322

James,

Thanks for the good info.  I tried using QEMM as my memory manager with DOS =
High.  Works OK but I still can't load SideKick high as I did with DOS 3.3.   I
also have problems with DosShell when SK is loaded low.  Oh well, I prefer
Pathminder to DosShell anyway and it is well behaved.  I also lost the use of
Norton Fcache and the Manifest program shipped with QEMM won't run.  So my only
gain so far is I now have a single partition 65M disk.  Better than nothing I
guess.

Bill

#: 9892 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  00:57:05
Sb: AT&T and DOS 5
Fm: Jan Riegl 76416,3575
To:  70431,1717 (X)

Doug, Just wanted to let you know that the ATTSCRN.COM worked like magic, and
the problem with the disappearing DOS prompt is gone ! I got into this mess
when a vital program in my work was updated to require "DOS 3.3 or higher".
Living in a small town in British Columbia, I found it hard to get advice on
that temperamental ATT PC6300 (which frankly should be traded in on something
more friendly and faster). Anyway you and Compuserve came to the rescue, which
is greatly appreciated! As you mentioned ANSI.SYS, here is my favorite prompt:
*$e[7m$p$g$e[m$e[37;44m * - reverse video prompt which sets up DOS in an
off-white text on a blue background. Perhaps you might enjoy it. Best regards,
-- Jan Riegl



#: 9894 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:20:07
Sb: Fdisk: No space?
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: John F. Granatino 76615,1510 (X)

John,
   Does your machine's CMOS have the correct drive type installed to match your
physical disk? That is, does your machine think your disk has the number of
heads and cylinders that are actually present? If not, you will never get at
the entire drive using DOS alone. When I got my system, the hard drive (a
MiniScribe 3650) which has 819 cyls x 6 heads was set up as 614 cyls by 6 heads
in the CMOS. The first 3/4ths of the drive was directly accessed by DOS as a
32MB partition. The remaining 10 Meg was accessed through DMDRVR.BIN, a device
driver set up by OnTrack's Disk Manager utility. I wondered why it was set up
this way until I found out that the BIOS in my machine did not have an entry in
its drive-type table to match my 819 x 6 drive. I had to upgrade my BIOS before
I could get at all 43 megs via DOS, extended partition or no; DOS can only see
the capacity corresponding to the CMOS drive-type entry!
   If this is your problem, you _might_ be able to get FDISK to see the
additional cylinders once you get the correct drive type in your CMOS and then
be able to create the extended partition you want.
   If not, you _will_ have to delete and reinstall your partitions (assuming
that the drive type stuff is correct). Dos 3.2 did not support extended
partitions, and it is not possible to modify an existing partition table to
support them. You would also have to delete and recreate the partition if you
want to use the entire drive as one unit.
   Finally, you are misinterpreting your CHKDSK report. 15917 allocation units
_is_ 32 megs (32MB drives use 2K clusters). The 4 megs didn't go anywhere,
that's the actual amount of free space on your 32-meg drive as currently
installed.
   Greg.



#: 9895 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  01:20:12
Sb: Drive Speed descreased!!
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321 (X)

Dimitri,
   Two questions:
     1. Prior to installing DOS 5.0, was your disk set up as one large
        partition or two or more smaller ones?
     2. When you reformatted the disk, did you create just one large
        partition?
   If you answered yes to both the above, then you can expect your disk access
times to drop, specifically on Norton's random seek test. This is because your
random seeks can now occur over the entire physical disk instead of only the
partition you were testing at the time.
   If this is the case, then you really don't have to worry about the speed
issue; SMARTDRV.SYS will _greatly_ increase your drive's performance under
normal use regardless of partition size. This is a good example of why Norton's
SI is not necessarily a good indicator of actual system performance.
   It is also possible that SMARTDRV itself is causing your poor SI rating;
some of the tests run by SI access your drive in a way that works against the
basic concept of a disk cache; i.e. deliberately accessing completely different
areas of the disk as rapidly as possible causes your system to waste time
checking the cache for information that isn't there. "Real world" programs
rarely access the disk this way!
    Greg.



#: 10300 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  11:49:16
Sb: #Drive Speed descreased!!
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321 (X)

Dimitrios,

As Greg says, partition size and using Smartdrv will make it hard to determine
whether or not there is a big difference in speed. And, the bigger the
partition, the more ground one has to cover in order to find something.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10713 S3/Hardware Issues
    06-Jul-91  16:34:57
Sb: #10300-Drive Speed descreased!!
Fm: Dimitrios C Patakidis 76477,3321
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

 My partition size was 32.? under DOS 3.3 and I partitioned it at 33.0 MB with
DOS 5.0. I am going to try again a partition size of 30 MB ;maybe the 32 MB is
the cuttof point for something I am unaware of. I've been reading messages
about cluster size. Is there a way to control the cluster size at will, or does
the formating software 'decide' on its own ?

        thank you
                dimitri P.




#: 9899 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:40:39
Sb: #DOS 5 dialing problem
Fm: Mark Simpson 72730,2672
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Thanks Todd,

I got a new set of initialization strings from the PPI forum sysop (Paul
Hansen, I think it is), and they seem to be working well.  I have even put my
cache back on the system (SuperPCK; 1 version old)with no ill effects.

       Mark




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10836 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:50:03
Sb: #9899-DOS 5 dialing problem
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Mark Simpson 72730,2672 (X)

Mark,

Thanks for reporting your solution--it's great when solutions are posted, as
well as problems.  Other users could benefit from your information.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9900 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:45:50
Sb: #$70 Upgrade?
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Ron D. Troy 76064,252 (X)

Ron,

I'm sorry if I missed your configuration information with respect to the
availability of the HMA.  It is the HMA that provides the great jump in free
memory under MS-DOS 5.0, as much of the system is loaded there, out of
conventional memory.  If you have no HMA, then the gains will not be seen, as
all will be loaded low.  The maximum available RAM chart is valid, as the
numbers represent an "ideal" system.  However, w/o extended memory, these
numbers are not possible; the documentation should be more clear in stating
that extended memory is necessary to obtain these benefits.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10110 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  20:33:59
Sb: #9900-#$70 Upgrade?
Fm: Ron D. Troy 76064,252
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Well said; the documentation should make it clear.  And so should the box and
any brochures.

And it would be very nice if MS were to come up with something that we poor,
non HMA-equipped types could do to make use of stuff like our 3.2 EMS ram.
They could provide it thru the forum if they wanted to, and it would
potentially make their 'lower ram usage' claim a lot more universal. Is there
anyone you could pass that on to?

        Ron



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10829 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:48:59
Sb: #10110-#$70 Upgrade?
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Ron D. Troy 76064,252 (X)

Ron,

Yes, I can and will pass such a request on to the appropriate people.  If I
could also get you to post your ideas in the "Suggestions" area  of MSCON, it
would be helpful.  It is a free area set aside for just such comments--your
voice as a user/customer has as much as mine, so I'd suggest using this
available resource.

Thanks,

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10952 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  17:42:09
Sb: #10829-$70 Upgrade?
Fm: Ron D. Troy 76064,252
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd, I have a limit on how many forums I can readily 'navigate', so I'll leave
it with you.  But if they want to reach me by Eplex they should feel free to.
Thanks!

        Ron



#: 9904 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:46:22
Sb: #MS-DOS 5.0 in a COMPAQ?
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Bob Nielsen 71540,2364 (X)

Bob,

This is not a function of the Microsoft version of the MODE command--can you
perform the speed switch with the MODE33 command?  I'm not sure if I'm getting
the gist of your message, as I'm not familiar with the key sequence you mention
to switch speeds.  Is it a Compaq standard?

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 9992 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:14:18
Sb: #9904-MS-DOS 5.0 in a COMPAQ?
Fm: Bob Nielsen 71540,2364
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd - The keystroke sequence I mentioned changed the DeskPro between its 8088
(4.77 MHz) emulation and its higher speed mode (I actually have replaced the
8086 with a V30 and can get even faster).  I was using DOS 2.12 Compaq
version).  The reference book didn't say anything about speed changing using
the MODE command.  I had an e-mail answer that said to use MODE SPE=high.  I
found a Compaq DOS 3.31 reference book that explained that enhancement.
(Actually for my machine MODE SPE=FAST is appropriate.)  I tried that with the
2.12 version of MODE and it actually works, although it is not documented.
Long road to get there, but it now does what I want. Thanks for the support.

Bob



#: 9905 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:46:31
Sb: #DOS5/DOS apps in Windows
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Helen Feddema 73330,2404 (X)

Helen,

In talking with other techs in my department, the common suspicion is that the
problem lies in the UMB area being used by both MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows. The
Windows technicians (I believe you spoke with Jeff Wickman) also agree. We are
forwarding this information to development to review, and expect an
answer/acknowledgement soon.

I will let you know what information I recieve.

Thanks for reporting this.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There are 2 Replies.

#: 9951 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  05:49:00
Sb: #9905-#DOS5/DOS apps in Windows
Fm: Helen Feddema 73330,2404
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Well, I tried what Jeff suggested (I already prepared an alternate CONFIG.SYS
which doesn't load anything high, for use with FastBack until I got v. 3.0) --
but the DOS apps still won't open windowed; I just get the message box about
how they can't be run windowed or in the background.  But, just as with DOS
etc. loaded high, I can open them full screen and then switch to windowed with
Alt-Enter.

I hope this problem will be solved soon.  Didn't the DOS 5 development team
talk to the Windows team during the beta?

Do I need a later version of Windows?  I have the original May 1990 version.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10834 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:49:46
Sb: #9951-DOS5/DOS apps in Windows
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Helen Feddema 73330,2404 (X)

Helen,

Yes, the MS-DOS 5.0 development team interacts with Windows developers. It's
just that this problem was not reported previously--I checked the beta test
records, and haven't come across it before.  I have put in a request for an
explanation as to what would cause this, and will let you know if I get a
satisfactory explanation.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 10108 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  20:14:16
Sb: #9905-DOS5/DOS apps in Windows
Fm: Walter Jaslanek 71311,1472
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

I am having a similar problem to Helens on 2 different computers: IBM PS2/80
A31 and a 386-33 clone both with 8 meg of memory. I have tried several
different CONFIG.SYS files with no luck. One file only uses HIMEM.SYS whiles
the other uses 386max and bluemax with a variety of disk caches PCKWIK,
POWERCACHE, SMARTDRV. When I start any DOS app with a PIF either specifying
background and/or window execution I get the popup message cannot run in a
window or background. I continue after the error by using ALT-Enter to force
app to full screen and it loads OK then I hit ALT-Enter again to run in a
window (it will also then run OK in the background). Before DOS5 I ran Win3
under both DOS 3.3 and 4.0 without this problem.

#: 9906 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:46:42
Sb: DOS5/WINDOWS3
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Mark Fetherolf 72647,3340 (X)

Mark,

Looking at your CONFIG.SYS file, I suggest increasing your BUFFERS to 20 or
so--it shouldn't cost any conventional memory, as the system files are in the
HMA.  Also, be sure that the WINA20.386 file is in the root of your boot drive.

Finally, check which handler is installed by HIMEM.SYS at boot time--you may
need to change this using the /MACHINE:xx option discussed in the documentaion
for HIMEM.SYS.

Let me know how things turn out.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9907 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:46:50
Sb: address change
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: James Wolfe 71540,2414 (X)

James,

It's my understanding that the units for beta testers have been sent.  I would
think that you'd have yours by now if you filled out the forms and sent in your
installation reports.  I'll try to find out whether or not all have been sent.

BTW, did you intend to post your address publicly?

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9908 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:46:59
Sb: MS-DOS 5.00 & TSR's
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: GEORGE M. BONNETT 76054,631 (X)

George,

Some TSR's do not function properly with DOSSHELL or other programs for that
matter, especially older programs.  I believe SideKick 2.0 runs properly, but
that earlier versions can run erratically.  As for SuperKey, I haven't seen any
problems reported with it here, but if you are having trouble with it, you
might consider evaluating the DOSKEY program included with the MS-DOS 5.0
Upgrade package.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader '



#: 9909 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:47:09
Sb: ~dosxxxx.tmp files
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Elias Davis 71725,706 (X)

Elias,

The TMP files contain information used by the DOSSHELL, and shouldn't even
exist after you exit the DOSSHELL program.  If you turn off the machine or
reboot while running the DOSSHELL, these files will not be removed, which is
part of the DOSSHELL's closing procedures.  After discovering these files, you
should be able to delete them while you are not in the DOSSHELL program at the
time.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9910 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:47:18
Sb: dos
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Michael Cyr 76357,2077

Michael,

This forum is primarily a forum for MS-DOS 5.0, but questions on other versions
are accepted and answered as best as possible.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9911 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:47:26
Sb: Optimizing
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Lou Heidenberg 72271,2263 (X)

Lou,

I will check with Kevin to see if he has any information for you.  As for
undocumented switches, their use is potentially destructive, and are not
guaranteed to function consistently across different versions of MS-DOS.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 10357 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  15:26:02
Sb: Optimizing
Fm: Bruce Hyman 72050,3664
To: Lou Heidenberg 72271,2263 (X)

        Lou, I have the same system, and am also interested in ways to optimize
my system. I have freed up about 55k by DOS being loaded high. How might I load
other programs in the upper mem area?

#: 9912 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:47:35
Sb: dos 5.0 & win 3.0 on 386
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: mike lonigro 76627,1024

Mike,

If you are using UMB's via MS-DOS 5.0's LOADHIGH or DEVICEHIGH commands, you
will have less resources available to Windows, as the UMB spaces are remapped
into extended memory.  This reduction in memory causes Windows to determine
that Standard mode is more efficient than Enhanced mode.  You can in most cases
override this with WIN /3, but performance can be slow, as disk-swapping will
increase due to the lack of free memory for Windows to utilize.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9913 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:47:46
Sb: #DOS 5.0 great !
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Gilbert Pesant 71321,1110 (X)

Gilbert,

Not having worked on the programming side of MS-DOS 5.0, I do not know the
amount of work involved with modifying COPY, XCOPY, etc. to use
extended/expanded memory.  I do know that it has been suggested by many users
such as yourself, and that it will be considered by development.  You should
place a suggestion in the "Suggestions" area of MSCON, as it is a free area
created for just such ideas.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10406 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  17:27:52
Sb: #9913-#DOS 5.0 great !
Fm: Gilbert Pesant 71321,1110
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd,

OK, I put it in the "suggestion box", hoping they'll do it for V5.1...  One
other thing puzzles me: what is the purpose of those volume serial numbers? I
upgraded from V3.3 to V5.0, so this is new to me.

Gilbert


There are 2 Replies.

#: 10444 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  20:38:36
Sb: #10406-DOS 5.0 great !
Fm: Dutch Blake 72425,253
To: Gilbert Pesant 71321,1110 (X)

I suppose because programs like dBASE which checked them, assumed that if they
were the same (even if blank) that the disk had not been replaced.  A very bad
choice as a number of users where I work found out.  The problem is endemic
with programs which do their own directory control.
                    Dutch




#: 10990 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  23:15:04
Sb: #10406-DOS 5.0 great !
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Gilbert Pesant 71321,1110

Gilbert,

The purpose of volume serial numbers is to identify a specific disk, which is
useful for things such as installation programs.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9914 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:47:55
Sb: #Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Robert Garsson 71140,1460 (X)

Bob,

When you say your DOS applications "don't work," what do you mean?  Does the
system hang?  Is an error message printed?  I've seen problems occur when
either the FILES or BUFFER value is too low--make sure that they are at least
20 each.

Could you post your AUTOEXEC and CONFIG files?  I'm puzzled by your statement
that the hotkeys for PCTools don't work with the DOS files in your path.  That
would be extremely strange behavior.  Could it be that the hotkeys are being
grabbed by DOSSHELL?  Also, what version of PCTools are you using, and which
hotkeys?  I've got both v6.0 and 7.0 to test with here.

Thanks,

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There are 3 Replies.

#: 10021 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:59:31
Sb: #9914-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Robert Garsson 71140,1460
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd:
 I started with the stripped down autoexec and config.sys files that DOS 5
created by itself. At that point, when I tried to launch a DOS program from 386
enh mode i would get a message saying that it could not find program, check
path.....Also, when i used control panel to change fonts, it gave an error
message (don't remember exactly what it was...reason i looked at fonts is they
were different on program manager screen when it came up first time under DOS
5.).
 I added some things back into config sys file (mouse driver, etc.) and then
dropped himem.sys and went back to using 386max. I'm a little better off now
then I was. At least, windows will try to launch program. Some of the DOS apps
actually come up. Others, harvard graphics, procomm in particular, just blow
the program. that is, it goes back to a c: prompt.
  Seems to work better in real or standard mode (which I'm not interested in
using those, however.)
 My hotkeys for PC Tools (ctrl esc to go into pc shell from c: prompt) didn't
work while DOS was in my path statement. also, if i recall correctly, it
wouldn't load windows, without first switching to windows directory, even tho
windows was in my path statement.
 BTW, I have the Gateway 2000 version of DOS 5, which doesn't appear to have
the uninstall feature I've heard so much about. Any ideas why? I'm really
unhappy about that, especially since I didn't find out until after I installed
DOS 5.
  (Continuing on new message)




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10145 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  04:50:02
Sb: #10021-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: Robert Garsson 71140,1460 (X)

I believe that the reason there is no uninstall in the Gateway MS-DOS 5.0 is
that this is the full DOS, not the "upgrade kit" being sold by, _inter alia_,
Egghead. With that kit, you need to reinstall your previous DOS to do an hard
disk format or something to that effect. (I don't remember the precise details,
and don't want to dig through the articles to find them, sorry.)

What you got from Gateway is the same program that they would use for
installing 5.0 on a new computer, which obviates the need for changing to an
older version, obviously. It would, perhaps, be nicer if Gateway's version
included that feature, but it was clear to me that it was not there by reading
the "Getting Started" booklet.

OTOH, I was puzzled by a reference in the DOS Appnotes.Txt file about looking
in Chapter 4 of "Getting Started for information about Loadfix, given that my
copy of "Getting Started" has no chapter 4. I've sent a msg. to the Gateway
forum asking about this--that is, is the info. in chap. 3 the same as that in
chap. 4 of other versions of the booklet, or is something missing.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10661 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  10:23:56
Sb: #10145-Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Gene McAloon 72320,1420
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)



   The upgrade version of DOS 5, as sold at Egghead and elsewhere, is
intended to be installed over a previous version of DOS.  The sole purpose of
the uninstall feature is to allow you, in effect, to back out of DOS 5 if the
installation fails or DOS 5 does not work on your machine as advertised.  It
is most certainly not there because it is necessary to return to an older DOS
version to do a format of your disk.

#: 10666 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  11:29:44
Sb: #10145-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Robert Garsson 71140,1460
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)

Well, I suspect you're right that a careful perusal of the getting started book
would have lead me to conclude that the uninstall feature wasn't there... But
on the other hand, the reviews of DOS 5 have made a big deal about the virtues
of the uninstall feature that I naturally assumed that was part of the package.
Especially since Gateway told me, on its BBS and via customer service, that it
was identical to other copies being sold. I think it's a major feature and
should have been included. I think I've gotten my problems worked out, but if I
hadn't, I'd be a little upset. But now that things are working, I'm pretty
happy with DOS 5 and the Gateway price is pretty reasonable. regards bob



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10842 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  05:18:28
Sb: #10666-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: John Liebson 76011,1445
To: Robert Garsson 71140,1460 (X)

I think that the existence of the two versions, full and upgrade, is something
that has been missed by just about the entire world. Neither InfoWorld, nor
Byte, nor PCMag, as far as I can recall, talked about this, for example. I'm
not surprised that Gateway overlooked it, either--as far as they are concerned,
it seems to me, their version *is* identical: It runs the same way as everyone
elses...

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10917 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  14:36:08
Sb: #10842-Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Robert Garsson 71140,1460
To: John Liebson 76011,1445 (X)

John:
 In a sense, I think you're right. Versions are identical in almost every
important respect. But I do think the uninstall feature is significant and it
would have been nice if they advertised it's absence. As you noted, the
distinctions between the two versions have gone unnoticed in all the reviews,
as far as I can tell.
 Cheers bob




#: 10022 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:59:45
Sb: #9914-Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Robert Garsson 71140,1460
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Continuing,
 Here's my config.sys, autoexec.bat and 386Max profile files

Device=C:\386Max\386max.sys pro=c:\386max\386max.pro rem
Device=c:\386max\386load.sys size=37456 flexframe prog=c:\fastbios.sys rem
Device=Fastbios.sys rem Device=C:\HIMEM.SYS/machine:1 DEVICE=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
rem DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS Device=C:\Dos\Smartdrv.sys DOS=HIGH,UMB Stacks=0,0
Break=On Buffers=20 Files=40 Device=C:\mouse.sys

@ECHO OFF PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\WINDOWS;C:\PCTOOLS;C:\UTIL; PCSHELL /RT SET
TEMP=C:\windows\temp WINLOAD

(386 Max) USE=B000-B200   ; INSTALL ==> Recover RAM in MDA region USE=F400-F800
; INSTALL ==> Recover fill regions in ROM EXT=1088        ; creates extended
memory for smartcache ; This profile created automatically by INSTALL thanks
for any help you can give me. regards. bob



#: 10667 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  11:29:54
Sb: #9914-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Robert Garsson 71140,1460
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd:
 I think I may have worked out the problems I was having with DOS 5, with one
exception.
 I deleted Windows and Dos 5 from my hard disk and reinstalled both. Had
trouble the first time when i copied my old INI, GRP and PIF files back to the
Windows directory, but when I did it again and began recreating my groups, INI,
etc. one step at a time, things turned around. It's a pain, but DOS 5 seems to
be working fine with Windows now. Somehow DOS 5 must have corrupted a WIN.INI
or GRP or System.INI file, or something when I installed it....That sound
reasonable?
 Still, I cannot get my PC Tools hotkeys to work with DOS in my path statement.
I use the ctrl-esc keys to hotkey into pc shell a lot, and so that's a bit of a
problem. I'd like to be able to keep dos in my path statement if i could as
well.....Any ideas? Regards Bob
 (By the way, thanks for the earlier response....it really was a nightmare when
i couldn't get my DOS apps working under windows.......)




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10813 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  00:52:51
Sb: #10667-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442
To: Robert Garsson 71140,1460 (X)

Robert:

Just caught this thread, and read the final paragraph of your message to
Todd with interest. I cannot get any DOS apps, or a DOS prompt that won't
crash, to run under Windows and DOS 5. I have tracked it down to PC Shell
6.0 running resident. If I remove it before starting Windows in 386 Enhanced
mode, everything works OK. Needless to say, this is a pain.  Did you find a
fix or are you just 'KILL'ing PC Shell before starting Win?

TIA

                             -Andrew-


There are 2 Replies.

#: 10839 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  05:02:30
Sb: #10813-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Tom Price 75300,620
To: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442 (X)

Andrew,
 If you're running Win3 in 386enh mode, why bother to run anything in resident
mode? Just start PC Shell as a separate application, use a PIF so that you can
specify a shortcut key to switch to it, and your problem is solved. Also, by
not running PC Shell resident, you end up with more conventional RAM in which
to run other DOS applications. You could do the same with other utilities like
Sidekick. In effect you could have a whole assortment of tools available, all
behaving as if they were 'resident' but not consuming any conventional RAM.
       Tom




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11030 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  07:28:11
Sb: #10839-Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442
To: Tom Price 75300,620 (X)

Tom:

Thanks for the suggestion.  Unfortunately I'm not yet at the point where I
do everything in Windows.  For a start, my modem is configured to use COM4
and I cannot get that to work under WIN.  I use a fax card whose software
doesn't work under WIN (won't receive incoming faxes).  Until these and
other things get to work I still do a fair bit of work in DOS.

                             -Andrew-


#: 10916 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  14:36:00
Sb: #10813-#Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Robert Garsson 71140,1460
To: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442 (X)

Andrew:
 thanks for your note;it helped me figure out one of the problems I'm having.
Let me explain
 Most of my problems went away after I deleted Windows and DOS5 from my hard
disk and reinstalled both. With Windows, I had to recreate INI and GRP
files...when I tried to copy over old ones, all of the problems came back. I
have to assume something was corrupted when I installed DOS 5. All was going
well except my hotkeys for PC Tools (Version 6) didn't work. When I put the
line PCSHELL /rt in my autoexec.bat file, hotkeys worked, but I began having
problems in Windows. A coreldraw 2 program wouldn't run right (system rebooted
when I tried to copy some clip art) and Tapcis and Procomm wouldn't run (again,
reboots). After I read your note, I killed PC Shell before starting windows and
Corel worked properly. If you get this message, it means tapcis is working
properly. But that's a bit of a problem. I use PC SHell a lot and need the
hotkeys. It's a pain to kill it before going into Windows. Just out of
curiousity, what kind of machine are you running? Anything unusual in your
config.sys or autoexec.bat files? I'm keeping things simple right now. haven't
put 386Max back in yet. Wish I could be of more help. But thanks for your note.
Really helped. Let me know how it goes. Regards Bob




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10974 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  20:10:55
Sb: #10916-Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442
To: Robert Garsson 71140,1460

Bob:

I have quite a bit of stuff loaded high.  I took it *all* out when I was
trying to trouble-shoot.  PC Shell was the culprit.  When I put it back, Win
crashed when running DOS apps; took it out and put everything else back,
everything worked OK.  I did not have any problem with WIN apps, but I don't
use Corel Draw.  I have 386MAX in, but I haven't tried without it yet.  As I
don't want to use PC Shell inside Windows, I start WIN with a batch file
that KILLs it before starting WIN and re-loads it on exit.  However, this is
a pain and a kludge and not acceptable.  I'm still working on it.

I didn't fully understand your reference to the hotkeys not working.  What
exactly was happening?

                             -Andrew-


#: 10991 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  23:15:14
Sb: #10667-Windows and DOS 5
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Robert Garsson 71140,1460

Robert,

That is still puzzling to me (the loss of your hotkeys).  Unless, of course,
you are running DOSSHELL or Windows, which grab the CTRL-ESC combination. Then,
it would make sense that the key combo doesn't activate PCShell.  I'd suggest
trying loading PC-SHELL with the /Fx option, where x is the number of the
function key to pair with CTRL to call up PCSHELL.  For instance, "PCSHELL /F7"
makes the hotkey CTRL-F7.  Give that a try, if you will.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9915 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:48:04
Sb: UNDELETE BUG CONFIRMED
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Robert B. McCollum 75775,1633 (X)

Robert,

Looks like it's confirmed then.  Will be sure to put it into the developers'
priority lists.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 10316 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  12:44:54
Sb: #UNDELETE BUG CONFIRMED
Fm: Leibel Tennenbaum 72421,2324
To: Robert B. McCollum 75775,1633 (X)

First of all can you give me a quick desription of the bug. And also will it
affect my C drive which has one partition of the entire 155 meg. I am also
experiencing some quirks with undelete.

A quick response will be appreciated.

Thanks





                                               =-Leibel-=


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10319 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  12:49:42
Sb: #10316-UNDELETE BUG CONFIRMED
Fm: Robert B. McCollum 75775,1633
To: Leibel Tennenbaum 72421,2324 (X)

Leibel:
   The bug is that UNDELETE will not work at all IF you have a partition
of EXACTLY 128MB as defined by FDISK.  All other partition sizes seem
to work perfectly.  This bug shouldn't bother your 155MB partition at
all.
    In spite of the fact that I have found one or two things about
MS_DOS 5.0 that bother me, I think it's a pretty good product.
                                  Bob McCollum

#: 9916 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:48:13
Sb: #Windows/MS-Dos Editor
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Charlie Chapman 70461,2635 (X)

Charlie,

Does your path include the DOS directory when you are running Windows?  I have
just used help in EDIT from Windows without difficulty.  Also, could you give
me what the exact message you get is?  I can't find the message in the DOS 5.0
files using a text-search utility.

Thanks,

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10056 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  14:46:12
Sb: #9916-Windows/MS-Dos Editor
Fm: Charlie Chapman 70461,2635
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd, The message I'm getting is;  (In a box in center of screen); "Bad File
Mode"
   <OK> I then have to click OK to get out to edit.  Edit works just fine, but
if I click HELP and then one of the pop down items, I get this message, but no
help screen.  I have Dos5 Editor setup as default in some of my other utilities
programs (ie Xtree Gold default editor) and it works fine there. I launch Xtree
gold from Windows (Edit help works ok).

For a stand alone editor in windows, I set Editor up using program manager and
browse to insert program name (edit.com from DOS directory).  But when I launch
the program by double clicking the icon, the help doesn't work.

How do you have your version of Editor setup in Windows, are you using a PIF or
just the program name?

Thanks for any suggestions. Charlie



#: 10057 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  14:46:19
Sb: #9916-Windows/MS-Dos Editor
Fm: Charlie Chapman 70461,2635
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd, I should have added, Editor works fine in Windows, I just can't use the
help screens when launched as a stand alone.

Yes, the Dos file is in my path.



#: 9918 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:48:30
Sb: #Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Chet Langin (The Wall) 73770,615 (X)

Chet,

Were you running anything else at the time?  I just ran TP 5.5 out of the
task-switcher without difficulty.  I'm on a 386, but I disabled all extended
memory and forced everthing low.  Is this a reproducible problem?

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 9990 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:09:10
Sb: #9918-#Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: Chet Langin (The Wall) 73770,615
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

I found the culprit:  A TSR name Logit! from Robertson Software, P.O. Box 576,
Geneva, IL  60134.  This utility automatically records which programs I'm
using, times them, and counts keystrokes.  I load it from AUTOEXEC.BAT and
check it once a month to log computer usage.

First, I removed every TSR from AUTOEXEC.BAT.  Then, task swapping worked.
Then, I added them back until Logit! was revealed as the problem.

Chet




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10421 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  19:08:22
Sb: #9990-#Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: George Simon 76507,3040
To: Chet Langin (The Wall) 73770,615 (X)

I have a problem with "Task Switcher".  Whenever I activate it a message pops
up saying:
"Your program cannot be swapped out to disk. There is not enough space on your
disk. etc, etc.

I have over 50 MB left on my disk.  Any ideas?


There are 3 Replies.

#: 10630 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  08:03:41
Sb: #10421-#Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: Chet Langin (The Wall) 73770,615
To: George Simon 76507,3040 (X)

I'm not positive, but I can take a stab at it.  The DOS Shell uses temporary
files.  A directory can only hold so many files.  If the DOS Shell is trying to
save the temporary files in a directory which fills up, you will get an error
message, even though the disk, itself, is not full.

You can now use an environment variable to specify where temporary files will
be kept.  The variable is TEMP.  I use a directory which is also named TEMP.
Put this in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file:

  SET TEMP=C:\TEMP

Good luck.

Chet




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10851 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  07:40:05
Sb: #10630-Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: George Simon 76507,3040
To: Chet Langin (The Wall) 73770,615 (X)

Thanks Chet.

I tried it but it doesn't work.  I still get the same massage.

If you hear or can come up with any other suggestions I'd appreciate it if you
let me know.

I wonder, is this happening to anybody else?

By the number of messages I see in the forum, this seems to be a pretty "buggy"
version authough I must admit I've had no trouble except with the task
switcher.

George


#: 10646 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  09:33:25
Sb: #10421-#Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: George Simon 76507,3040 (X)

Did you set the TEMP variable to point to a RAMDRIVE?



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10688 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  13:32:58
Sb: #10646-#Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: George Simon 76507,3040
To: Steve Ringley 73727,1202 (X)

no


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10941 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  17:06:21
Sb: #10688-Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: George Simon 76507,3040

OK...did you stay with multiple small partitions?  Is the partition full? Those
swap files tend to run around 400K-500K.



#: 10993 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  23:15:32
Sb: #10421-Task Swap Don't Work
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: George Simon 76507,3040

George,

I agree that the problem may lie with your TEMP variable, but there's something
I want to clear up--the number of files in a particular directory is limited
only by disk space, provided the directory is not a root directory.  Root
directories on hard disks have a maximum of 512 total files and directories in
them, while subdirectories have no limit other than disk space.  Please check
that your TEMP variable points to a disk which has space on it, and that it is
not pointing to the root directory of a drive.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9919 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:48:37
Sb: #QBASIC & keyboard
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: John Matta 74676,2725

John,

This problem has been detected on some systems, and there is a fix for it. Try
downloading FIXSHIFT from the Microsoft Library (GO MSL).  Search on "FIXSHIFT"
to locate the file.

Let me know how things turn out.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10720 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  17:17:27
Sb: #9919-#QBASIC & keyboard
Fm: Jerry Johnson 75160,2530
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd,

I've been avidly reading your suggestions for the keyboard problems with DOS5,
as I have had them, too, with WP5.1, TC++, EDIT, etc.  I've tried all the
suggested fixes.  FIXSHIFT didn't work, nor did anything else I tried dealing
with HIMEM.SYS until one message here suggested installing KEYB in CONFIG.SYS.
I tried that using

INSTALL=C:\DOS\KEYB.COM US,,C:\DOS\KEYBOARD.SYS

in my CONFIG.SYS, and it worked great!  I wanted to pass this along, as there
seem to be a lot of us who still want to use our keyboards with DOS5!

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10994 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  23:15:41
Sb: #10720-QBASIC & keyboard
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Jerry Johnson 75160,2530

Jerry,

Thank you _very_ much for reporting this--I'll add it to my list of possible
fix-ups in the future.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9920 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:48:48
Sb: #DMDRVR / SMARTDRIVE ??
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Stacy Aronson 76130,2200 (X)

Stacy,

You should run the MS-DOS 5.0 version of SMARTDRV with the /P option
(README.TXT Section 7.5).  It will ignore the non-DOS partition.  Do not use
the Windows SmartDrive with DiskManager--it is dangerous to do so.

The reason DMDRVR would still be necessary under MS-DOS 5.0 is that your
machine may not support your hard drive type directly.  To test this, you need
to check to see if your CMOS settings actually match the number of heads,
cylinders, and sectors/track physically present on your hard disk. If not, you
still need DiskManager to trick your machine into using the non-supported
drive.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There are 2 Replies.

#: 9973 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  09:30:53
Sb: #9920-DMDRVR / SMARTDRIVE ??
Fm: Mel Lukens 70366,125
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd:  Just joined this forum and happened upon this item.  I (also) had an
incompatible partition error message when I tried to use the smartdrv.sys in my
config.sys file.  I am using DiskManager, also.  Why is it 'Dangerous' to use
both smartdrv.sys with DiskManger?  Since I can't get smartdrv.sys to run, it's
really a mute point, but I would like to have a cache.

Your thoughts... Thanks, Mel Lukens.

#: 10694 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  14:15:27
Sb: #9920-DMDRVR / SMARTDRIVE ??
Fm: Don Norman 72617,2620
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

I've been running Windows SmartDrive with DM for a long time with no problems
under DOS 3.1. However, under DOS 5.0 it reports an incompatible partition. If
I force it with /P it loads fine but Windows gives me a UAE on anything I try.
Any ideas?

#: 9921 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  01:48:58
Sb: #BUG REPORT: Label
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Dennis P Beatley 70401,1233 (X)

Daniel and Dennis,

There may be some more extenuating circumstances on this one.  I just used the
following, all with success:

       LABEL B:TODD
       LABEL B: TODD
       LABEL B:  TODD
       LABEL B:   TODD

In each case, the disk had the label "TODD", without any lead spaces.  Does
this work for you after a "clean" boot?

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10052 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  14:02:47
Sb: #9921-BUG REPORT: Label
Fm: Daniel Lieberman 71545,1130
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd: After a clean boot without an autoexec.bat or config.sys Label works
properly.  You have my autoexec.bat and config.sys and I am unaware of anything
in them that should cause a malfunction.  If you want to try to run this down
and squash it I will be happy to help you try.  If you don't think it is worth
worrying about that's fine too.  Obviously I can live fine with this problem.
Incidentally I tried both the command line and interactive form of the command
and they both worked. Dan

#: 9922 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  01:49:05
Sb: format/s problem
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Grant C. McGregor 72237,744

Grant,

Does the drive you set COMSPEC to have the system files on it?  The only way I
can get that prompt out of FORMAT is to mis-set the COMSPEC variable. With SYS,
if the default drive doesn't have the system files, the message appears even
with COMSPEC set accurately.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9923 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  01:49:15
Sb: #Fastopen & EMS
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Philip Torrez 72627,1705 (X)

Phil,

Could it be that there just isn't enough EMS available?  Have you loaded
FASTOPEN without the others in EMS?  Or increased your allocation of EMS?

If these don't work, please post information about your system's hardware, and
include your CONFIG.SYS file and how you generate the error.

Thanks,

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10336 S6/Command Usage
    05-Jul-91  14:10:35
Sb: #9923-#Fastopen & EMS
Fm: Philip Torrez 72627,1705
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd:

As stated in my first msg, fastopen /x has been run from the DOS command line,
autoexec.bat and config.sys with and without the cache and ramdrive installed.
Result, same as always, msg "Unable to setup expanded memory".

Ems is fully populated 2 meg board; ramdisk 360k and cache is 256k so have some
1.4+ meg ems memory with ramdrive and cache installed.

System is and 8088 4/10meg turbo run at 10 meg with following hardware 8087
coprocessor, 32 meg Seagate RLL hard drive & controller, 1.2meg & 360k 5/14
disk drives & DTK 1.4 V1.06B disk controller board, I/O board, Zoom Tech.
300/1200/2400 interfnal modem board, Magnavox CGA monitor and CGA board, joy
stick and one dotmatrix and one daisy wheel printers.

The error is generated whenever I use the /x switch with the fastopen command.
The fastopen command works in conventional memory.

Config.sys and autoexec.bat files follow:

Con fig.sys: buffers=4 files=30 device=c:\sys\ems40.sys /b=d000 /=258
device=c:\sys\ramdrive.sys 360 512 128/a devic3=c:\sys\ansi.sys devic3=c:
cancel above line divice=c:\dos\setver.exe

autoexec.bat: @echo off path d:; c:\dos;c:\pctools mirror c: /tc pc-cache /Ia
/Ib /sizexp=256k timers/s colorset 30 3 prompt $_$d$_$p$_$ Yes Phil? xcopy
c:\batch d: >nul menu

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10647 S6/Command Usage
    06-Jul-91  09:33:30
Sb: #10336-Fastopen & EMS
Fm: Steve Ringley 73727,1202
To: Philip Torrez 72627,1705 (X)

I have the same problem, because I use a LIM 3.2 board.  If your board has some
kind of goofy driver, but is not really 4.0 compatible...it just showed!



#: 10400 S6/Command Usage
    05-Jul-91  16:57:48
Sb: #9923-Fastopen & EMS
Fm: Philip Torrez 72627,1705
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd:

Typos, typos, config.sys file should read: buffers=4 files=30
device=c:\sys\3ms40.sys /b=d000 /p=258 device=c:\sys\ramdrive.sys 360 512 128/a
devic3=c:\sys\ansi.sys device=c:\dos\setver.exe

correct line 5 to read device=c:\sys\ansi.sys etc.

#: 9924 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  01:49:25
Sb: #DOS 5.0 ERASE Problem
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Jim Dalin 72260,1573 (X)

Jim,

It looks like you had a file marked "read-only".  In this case, DEL (or ERASE)
will fail with the message you reported.  This is why the read-only attribute
exists.  The FORMAT command erased the whole disk, and therefore took off all
read-only files, allowing these commands to work.

Try putting some files on a disk, then using "ATTRIB +R filename", and deleting
the files from the disk--you'll get the same message.  Then, use "ATTRIB -R
filename" and the problem goes away.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10321 S6/Command Usage
    05-Jul-91  13:06:00
Sb: #9924-DOS 5.0 ERASE Problem
Fm: Jim Dalin 72260,1573
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Thanks for the tip.  I'll give it a try.

#: 9925 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  01:49:35
Sb: LOADHIGH?DEVICEHIGH
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: PAUL A. LARSEN 73030,1523 (X)

Paul,

The reason you can't get both SMARTDRV and the mouse driver high is that the
mouse driver requires more room to load than  it actually occupies once
installed.   It requires as much space as the size of the driver's file on the
disk to load, then shrinks down to the 12.5K you see with the MEM command.
Therefore, there must be a block large enough to hold the entire file
temporarily.

As for MIRROR, it does automatically load high if it can.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader



#: 9926 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  01:49:46
Sb: off
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Bruce Allen 70473,2156 (X)

Bruce,

I'd like a little more information about your systems.  First, on the 8088,
what type of CPU is it--the manufacturer and model rather than just the chip
version.

As for the second machine, how does it behave when you boot from a "clean"
floppy?  It could be an interaction among programs or the FORMAT command
itself.  In order to determine this, try running it as cleanly as possible, on
a 720K disk, preferably unformatted.  The options you showed in your message
are the standard methods which are used to perform the task, and normally work.

Please let me know if you can give me any more information.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9928 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:50:06
Sb: #emm386.exe Northgate
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

David,

I did look at your CONFIG file--I didn't mean to imply that SmartDrive wasn't
low, just to keep it that way.  With respect to the equipment you have, it is
still important to exclude used regions of the UMB space.  I suggest testing it
by excluding A000-EFFF.

Another thing to try is forcing SMARTDRV to perform double-buffering, using the
switch "/B+".  This can cure some problems with SCSI controllers. Finally, if
the Adaptec controller you have is intercepting interrupt 67, the EMS
interrupt, it can cause problems such as hanging whenever expanded memory is
accessed.  In this case, there is a driver ADAPTEC.SYS available from Adaptec
to cure this.

Onto the REM statements:  try deleting the lines entirely (which should be the
functional equivalent if the file is being parsed properly).  If the behavior
is different, then the interpretation of the file is not correct.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 9968 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  08:46:08
Sb: #9928-#emm386.exe Northgate
Fm: David Dennies 72050,3330
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

SMARTDRV.SYS /B+  ??????

Not in the manual guys!  What's the deal, and how do I learn of all of the
other "Too cool to mention" features?

David




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10830 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:49:07
Sb: #9968-emm386.exe Northgate
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: David Dennies 72050,3330 (X)

David,

I don't know about "Too cool to mention", but the B+ option is an option which
I was introduced to recently--I believe it should have made the README file,
but did not.

There is an article which discusses loading SMARTDRV low on systems with SCSI
controllers.  GO MSKB, and search for document q73408.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9929 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:50:15
Sb: SHARE and DOS5
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Joy M. Cohen 71350,2733

Joy,

I'd be interested in their reasoning--since some Win techs are down the hall,
it may be in my interests to spring for lunch and do a little investigating.

Thanks,

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9961 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  07:51:25
Sb: #SHARE and DOS5
Fm: Bob Reagan 75236,1430
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd,

Are you saying that SHARE is now required with Novell?  It never used to be in
prior versions of DOS.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10832 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:49:26
Sb: #9961-SHARE and DOS5
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Bob Reagan 75236,1430 (X)

Bob,

SHARE is required when using Networks which don't provide their own
file-locking scheme.  I believe that Novell Netware does not require SHARE, but
I could be wrong.  If you didn't use it before, you shouldn't need to now,
though.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9932 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:50:43
Sb: #DOS 5.0 tech support
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Todd Hicks 76376,1302 (X)

Todd,

Yes, we did learn from Windows; that's why we had a tenfold increase in support
staff since last August.  Of course, these numbers were based upon sales
predictions, calls per user estimates, length of calls, etc.  Many variables
are involved, and the process of predicting is extremely complex.

I wonder about your statement that "Joe User" could see the demand for this
product.  As Joe Tech, I did not expect to see this much response in so short a
period of time.  The packages barely hit the shelves before they hit the
street.  How many units would you say have been shipped/sold, and how many of
those users have called, and how long has each call lasted?  The sales numbers
have exceeded even the rosiest of forecasts.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10354 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  15:08:35
Sb: #9932-#DOS 5.0 tech support
Fm: Todd Hicks 76376,1302
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Yeah, I can see how it would be difficult to predict the exact number of sales
for a product. But I remember reading a few months ago about all the new
features in DOS 5 and I was thinking that if these features are actually in the
product, then it would fly off the shelves real fast just like Windows did. I
guess I was really irked about the fact that the first time I called support I
was told by a recording that support did not open until 8 am PDT (11am for us
on the east coast). Then, when I called back later, the recording said that the
support dept. closed from 1-2pm on tuesdays & thursdays. I find it amazing that
no one at Microsoft had the foresight to see that this would be a problem and
would simply infuriate users and further clog the phone lines during the times
the support dept. was open.

-Todd

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10988 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  23:14:46
Sb: #10354-DOS 5.0 tech support
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Todd Hicks 76376,1302 (X)

Todd,

You're not kidding about it being difficult to predict sales.  Current sales
are outracing the most glamorous predictions by nearly a factor of two, from
what I've heard  (Again, I state that I don't have inside sales information,
just perceptions from users/magazines/fellow employees).

I do understand the difficulty of the phone lines not being on until 11am EST.
While it is certainly a point worth considering, there are a couple of other
factors:  first, you get service until 8 PM, while West Coasters are cut off at
5pm; second, no way am I getting to work at 5am--if I'm awake at 5am, I'm
either going fishing or I'm sick<g>.  Others may volunteer for such a shift,
but not me.

Finally, the meetings.  They are unavoidable, I believe.  There has to be a
time where all of the technicians can get together to disseminate information,
and it must be a time where everyone is available.

I don't recall if I suggested to you that you post your feelings in the
"SUGGESTIONS" area of MSCON--if not, please do so, as it is a free area for
customers/users to voice their opinions.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9933 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:50:54
Sb: Do I Still Need SHARE?
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: David Martin 76702,1152 (X)

David,

SHARE still does it's job of file-locking, and it also checks to see if an
illegal disk swap has occured.  Some installation programs leave files open
when disk switches are made, and that's where the difficulty occurs--if a read
or write operation takes place when a disk has been changed in the middle of an
operation, SHARE checks the volume label to determine if it is the same disk
that was previously in the drive.  If not, you get the error message indicating
invalid disk.  The version I recall this problem occurring on was Excel 2.10,
but I'm not sure.  Anyhow, I just installed Excel 3.0 while running MS-DOS 5.0
and its SHARE command, so all looks well in this case.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 9935 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:51:19
Sb: #Stopped Clock
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: William R 75046,206 (X)

Bill,

Losing the clock has not been a problem on machines with standard clock devices
as of yet.  I am not saying that your problem doesn't exist, just that I've not
seen it previously.

In regards to your previous version of MS-DOS, which you say is 3.30, who is
the licensed manufacturer?  The original disks will possibly have another
company's name, in _addition_ to Microsoft's, on the label.  That could provide
a clue as to whether or not the clock on your system is standard. Also, print
out the CONFIG.DAT and AUTOEXEC.DAT files from your UNINSTALL disk; they are
your previous CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files.  Any references to clock
programs in these files would indicate a separate program is used to set the
clock on your machine.  If this is the case, you'd want to restore the special
files and commands to do so.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 9953 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  06:24:15
Sb: #9935-Stopped Clock
Fm: William R 75046,206
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Todd,
       Thank you for your reply. No there was no reference to the clock in the
autoexec.bat or config sys. The old dos 3.3 was installed by a tech who had to
reformat my harddisk after a crash. There was nothing special about it...just
plain old Microsoft MSDOS 3.3.

       I think I am going to give up on DOS 5.0 and go back to what I was
using. I think 5.0 is probably okay for a computer expert. I am a writer who
only uses the computer for his work. I do not have the time or the knowlege to
run a complicated DOS system. The old system did exactly what I needed it to
do....it was foolish of me to upgrade. I am also ditching the new version of
PCTOOLS for the same reason...this was not my year for upgrades.

       This forum has been helpful to me and your help is appreciated but I
have figured out that my problem is not going to be solved except by junking
the new DOS. I must say that the help here is far superior to the help provided
on the MSDOS hot line which has taken to refering people here. Not too
comforting to someone who has been on the ATT meter for an hour waiting to talk
to someone.
       It should be noted that you and the other people here are doing a good
job in a difficult area. Again many thanks

                               Bill




#: 9936 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:51:27
Sb: #Delete partition?
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: David Martin 76702,1152 (X)

David,

I guess I've also got to make sure I understand the situation.  Why do you say
that Windows 3.0 requires Compaq DOS to run enhanced mode?  If Compaq made this
specific check in a licensed version of Windows, it could be that they check
the OEM signature on the hard disk.  If so, what you could do is use Norton or
PCTools or some such utility to change the signature back to Compaq's after
repartitioning and formatting under MS-DOS 5.0.  Of course, there may very well
be good reasons for Compaq to check for its own version of MS-DOS, so I'd
proceed with caution on this one.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11026 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  07:05:01
Sb: #9936-Delete partition?
Fm: David Martin 76702,1152
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Windows requires Compaq DOS for enhanced mode on a Compaq. This is something
MS coded into Windows 3.0. It has nothing to do with anything Compaq, HP, or
IBM did. The HP Forum posted a letter from MS to HP admitting that they did
this intentionally. Please understand that I'm not criticizing this -
according to the MS letter, this was done for good reasons. Nevertheless,
enhanced mode requires a specific OEM brand of DOS on certain machines,
including HP, Compaq, and IBM (according to the MS memo to HP). That's why
I'm concerned about the effects of repartitioning the drive and wiping out
remnants of the previous OEM DOS. Note that UPGRADING (without
repartitioning) does not cause a problem. Somehow, merely upgrading allows
Windows to still think it's dealing with the OEM DOS.


#: 9937 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  01:51:36
Sb: DOS 5 new user
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: James McDaniel[ZiffNet] 72241,322

James,

Thanks for the good word.  As you can see by the post time of this message,
things are quite busy up here.   Oh well, I didn't sleep in college, either
<g>.

Todd



#: 9938 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  01:58:20
Sb: #smartdrive /p & FDISK
Fm: EDGAR COUDAL 71337,2046
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200 (X)

What is the /P switch that makes my SMARTdrive work swell? It didn't even load
before! Also, can I use FDISK to change my 40-meg drive from 33 megs of C: and
8 megs of D: (the 3.3 setup) to 40 megs of C:, without all that copying and
reformatting and restoring, etc.? If so, exact syntax for doing so pls. If not,
I'll just leave the games out there] on the partitioned D:
   You guys responding to these messages are doing a great job.
   When will 5.01 be available?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10567 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:02
Sb: #9938-smartdrive /p & FDISK
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: EDGAR COUDAL 71337,2046

You cannot repartition without reformatting and all the rest.  Sorry. This
excerpt is from the dos 5.00 readme.txt file and should explain about the
SMARTDrive:


 8.5 SMARTDrive and Third-Party Partitions
 -----------------------------------------

 If your system includes a third-party disk partition and you try to
 use SMARTDrive, you may receive a message stating that you cannot load
 SMARTDrive.

 You can force SMARTDrive to load by specifying the /p switch. However,
 doing so may corrupt your hard disk if either of the following
 conditions is true:

    * Your hard disk contains more than 1024 cylinders.
    * Your hard disk is not supported by the system's ROM BIOS.

 If you have partitions created by using third-party disk-partitioning
 software, use SMARTDrive ONLY if you are sure your hard disk contains
 1024 or fewer cylinders AND it is supported directly by the system's
 ROM BIOS.


Dev



#: 9942 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  04:05:25
Sb: AST & 5.0
Fm: Richard Carlson 76605,470
To: David D. Salmon 71160,2112 (X)

You'd think that by now they'd have realized that their software is
incompatible with DOS 5.  There should at least be bulletins about that on
their board.

#: 10466 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  23:11:07
Sb: AST & 5.0
Fm: Ron VanAbrahams 76414,270
To: Richard Carlson 76605,470

My sympathetic! The AST's I've used are used pretty much as workstations on a
Novell network so I've not had the experiences you've had. I've really had no
problem at all; two machines are used with their HDU's but, again, there is no
AST software in use (SMARTDRV, QRAM are, however).

As for machine vendor customized versions of DOS, I don't think they are very
much modified from the base MS versions. I've pretty much replaced all
vendor-specific versions of DOS (Dell, Compaq, AST, NEC) with the MS-DOS 5.0
upgrade and no problems yet.

This is the first version of DOS that MS has really sold at retail. I suspect
that is a message to machine vendors to pretty much sell the MS version of DOS
and not tweak it. As for me, I'm hopeful if that is the outcome. I move between
several machines and I'm all for *some degree* of standardization at the
operating system level.

..Ron




#: 9949 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  05:27:58
Sb: Windows 3
Fm: Pedro del Castillo 100015,242
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

NATE, many thanks, i have now everything under control with win/3
hope see you again
bye


#: 9950 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  05:41:51
Sb: #DOS5 AND WINDOWS
Fm: RAGNAR WIENCKE 100012,3471
To: ALL

Hi there. Is there somone who can tell me where I can find a file named
WINA20.386 I would very much like to know. Thanks and regards, rw/exit

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10179 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:15:54
Sb: #9950-#DOS5 AND WINDOWS
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: RAGNAR WIENCKE 100012,3471 (X)

It's on one of the DOS 5 disks in compressed form.  You have to use expand.exe
(in your DOS directory) to decompress it, and you have to put it into your root
directory.  The compressed file has a name that ends with an underline instead
of a 6, so you rename the file when you decompress it.

expand a:wina20.38_ c:\wina20.386





There is 1 Reply.

#: 11093 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  13:45:41
Sb: #10179-DOS5 AND WINDOWS
Fm: RAGNAR WIENCKE 100012,3471
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344

Hi Bill! Thanks a lot for this information. Ragnar Wiencke /EXIT

#: 9957 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  06:55:50
Sb: AST / DOS 5.0 problems
Fm: Helen Feddema 73330,2404
To: Jay Chaisson 71257,2561 (X)

I have an AST Premium 386SX/16 with three floppy drives (all TEACs, I believe).
I had to modify numerous batch files after the upgrade because my 5-1/4" 1.2 MB
floppy (the 3rd floppy) was renamed from G to E, because I repartitioned my
hard drive, previously divided into four partitions with DOS 3.3, into two
partitions with DOS 5.0.  Is this a possibility for your system?  Did you do
anything that resulted in a partition or drive label being changed?



#: 10299 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  11:49:07
Sb: AST / DOS 5.0 problems
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jay Chaisson 71257,2561 (X)

Jay,

What problems exactly is your friend having? To my knowledge AST is simply
announcing their release date along with everyone else. DOS 5 is being eaten
up.

Is this an external drive? If so, you might try using DRIVPARM. Could you post
his config.sys or any more information on the computer?

Thanks,

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 10429 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  19:34:24
Sb: AST / DOS 5.0 problems
Fm: JAMES P. COUNCIL 70244,3222
To: Jay Chaisson 71257,2561 (X)

JAY:  SAW YOUR MESSAGE AND WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MAYBE THE PROBLEM LIES
WITH THE PARTICULAR BRAND OF DRIVE, I.E, TEAC.  I HAVE AN AST 386 WHICH I
PREVIOUSLY RAN ON DOS 4.01 WITH NO PROBLEMS AND NOW ON DOS 5.0 WITH NO
PROBLEMS.  MY DRIVES ARE NOT TEAC.  COULD THE PROBLEM BE WITH A COMPATIBILITY
ISSUE WITH THAT PARTICULAR BRAND?
JIM.

#: 9958 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  07:04:17
Sb: #1024 cyl. limit
Fm: Ron McGowan 71640,2213
To: microsoft

OK OK Can someone tell me why the 1024 cylinder limit still exists????  I mean
what old hangover from cpm86 is this?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10066 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  16:08:20
Sb: #9958-#1024 cyl. limit
Fm: Danny Thorpe 71510,3312
To: Ron McGowan 71640,2213

Ron,

  I believe the 1024 cylinder limit is in the AT bios.  IDE, ESDI, and SCSI
controller cards now do 'sector remapping' to make a 2 head, 1047 cylinder, 50
sector per track hard disk look like an 8 head, 800 cylinder, 17 sector per
track disk that is compatible with the AT bios drive tables.

  Those numbers I just gave are guesses - the real remappings work out to about
the same number of sectors once you do the multiplying...

-Danny



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10374 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  16:26:53
Sb: #10066-1024 cyl. limit
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Danny Thorpe 71510,3312 (X)

Danny hit it right on the money.  The 1024 cylinder limit is a BIOS standard.
We are working with the pc manufacturers to define a standard which allows more
than 1024 cylinders.

Eric (Microsoft).



#: 9959 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  07:09:56
Sb: #WINA20.386 ??
Fm: Peter Mokover 70310,235
To: All

After I installed DOS 5 I noticed the file WINA20.386 in my root directory.

What is it for?  I can't find any reference to it in the manual.  I assume it
has something to do with Windows which I DON'T use.  Can I get rid of the
file?

Peter

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9993 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:16:21
Sb: #9959-WINA20.386 ??
Fm: Sean Baxter 76044,1173
To: Peter Mokover 70310,235 (X)

Peter:

        The WINA20.386 file is needed for Windows 3.0 running in enhansed mode.
If you do not have Win 3.0 or a 386 then it is ok to delete.

Sean

#: 9960 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  07:14:15
Sb: #Logitech Mouse driver
Fm: George A. Baker 76137,1640
To: Dave Huff 76326,762

Thanks for your reply.  I finally persevered (spelling?) and made it into the
Logitech bulletin board at about 0:dark:30 in the morning! I have the 5.01
mouse driver and it works okay.  I would happily mail it to anyone who needs
it, if that isn't illegal....

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10407 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  17:33:44
Sb: #9960-Logitech Mouse driver
Fm:  Andrian Curshen 76340,534
To: George A. Baker 76137,1640

I have a Microsoft serial mouse. Will the same version 5.01 work as was just
mentioned for the Logitech mouse? I did send a msg a bit earlier about the
problem I had getting my mouse to work on DOS 5.0.  Is it because I have the
wrong version? It's ver 1.09 I think. Where can I get the right mouse.sys for
MS mouse? I have a Gateway 386/25 with 4 meg.
Andy C.

#: 9964 S8/BASIC Conversions
    04-Jul-91  08:11:40
Sb: #basic conversion
Fm: Raymond Shelton 73257,1764
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

I have just received my DOS 5.0 update from Microsoft but have not as yet
installed it on my computer.  I know the DOS has Qbasic instead of the old
GW-Basic.  Will my old basic programs convert to run under Qbasic without
problems.  I noticed something about a conversion program in some of the
documentation but have not tried this yet either. Also most of my basic
programs save data in basic files, some random and some sequential.  Is there a
conversion program for these type files.  Thanks for any help you supply.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10125 S8/BASIC Conversions
    04-Jul-91  22:41:42
Sb: #9964-#basic conversion
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: Raymond Shelton 73257,1764 (X)

Raymond,
   Unless your programs use absolute machine-language calls or play around with
PEEK and POKE, they will probably work just fine. You would have to save them
in ASCII format (SAVE "PROGRAM",A) so that QBasic could read them. You would
not have to change your data files at all unless you changed the statements you
use to access them. Even if you do have problems using them in QBasic, DOS
5.0's install will leave GWBASIC on your system and it will still function just
as it did before.
   Greg.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10627 S8/BASIC Conversions
    06-Jul-91  07:42:05
Sb: #10125-#basic conversion
Fm: Raymond Shelton 73257,1764
To: Greg Wolking 71630,20 (X)

Greg Thanks for your help.  Most of my programs should be OK from what you say.
I still use one commercial accounting program that uses some PEEKS and POKES
however.  If I can still use the old GW-BASIC under DOS 5 there still won't be
a problem.  Once again, thanks.

Raymond

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10818 S8/BASIC Conversions
    07-Jul-91  01:24:32
Sb: #10627-basic conversion
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: Raymond Shelton 73257,1764

Raymond,
   The PEEKS and POKES aren't necessarily bad; the important thing is that the
program defines the current segment properly with DEF SEG before it starts
PEEKing and/or POKEing. Compiled BASIC is much more finicky than GWBASIC in
this respect; compiled programs (.EXE files) may have several data segments
where the GWBASIC interpreter only uses one (and is thus limited to no more
than 64K worth of variable storage).
   Yes, GWBASIC works fine under DOS 5.0. I am using the GWBASIC that came with
my copy of MS-DOS (not PC-DOS) 3.3 and have yet to experience any problems.
   Greg.



#: 9966 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  08:45:32
Sb: Upgrade for Compaq DOS?
Fm: Bill Childs 71211,447
To: William Verthein 76557,3623

For what ever it's worth I'd say GO FOR IT!  I upgraded my COMPAQ with DOS 5.0
with no problems what ever.  It will really let you clean up your hard drive.



#: 9972 S10/Developers Exchange
    04-Jul-91  09:15:11
Sb: API notes for DOS5
Fm: Alberto Fioravanti 100016,2335
To: Craig Lewis 70006,2064 (X)

Yes, it DOES seem Microsoft's feeling another Big Blue. Maybe someone out there
is peeping these messages?

#: 10501 S10/Developers Exchange
    06-Jul-91  01:52:07
Sb: #API notes for DOS5
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Alberto Fioravanti 100016,2335 (X)

I am sure that if you were referred to MS-online it is because either no one
here could answer your question in the best manner possible or it requires
in-depth research that ms-online is better equipped to give.

I assure you that a corporation does not scan this forum, but people do. People
who are wise enough(and humble enough) to know their limits.  This is not
corporate arrogance.  It is a company that does not have 350,000 employees and
is trying its best to maintain the high quality of support and performance that
our customers have come to expect and demand.

We are doing our best to assist you.  If it means that we have to refer you, we
will.  However, you know your needs best, if after reading this you feel that
you would still rather have us at Product Support Services assist you, we will
not turn you away.  I am prepared to assist you in any way I can.

Dev



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10698 S10/Developers Exchange
    06-Jul-91  14:51:57
Sb: #10501-#API notes for DOS5
Fm: Daniel Norton 76050,2204
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Devlin,

No, a corporation does not scan this forum.  Nor does the corporation
support their products.  Please do not take this as a personal affront; I
am not referring to you, your responses are appreciated.  The fact of the
matter is that the corporation has exhibited profound arrogance, especially
most recently by releasing products that are littered with serious bugs,
and then failing to provide support except at exhorbitant rates.  Granted,
the quality should go in first, obviating the need for such extensive
support, but it ain't there yet.

The fact of the matter is that most of the developers that I speak to think
that this and other Microsoft forums should be staffed with folks who are
capable of answering the technical questions that are being referred to
OnLine.  If you would like examples, have a gander at the Borland forums.

I have left messages in other sections of this forum that go unanswered
(and have been echoed by other observers), so the issues aren't just
related to developer questions.
--
Daniel Norton

p.s. If anyone else reading this concurs, please make your opinions known.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10887 S10/Developers Exchange
    07-Jul-91  12:28:18
Sb: #10698-#API notes for DOS5
Fm: David Andrews 76137,1056
To: Daniel Norton 76050,2204 (X)

>p.s. If anyone else reading this concurs, please make your opinions known.

Normally I would but I don't want to be accused of scanning this forum.<g>


There is 1 Reply.

#: 11054 S10/Developers Exchange
    08-Jul-91  09:21:19
Sb: #10887-API notes for DOS5
Fm: Alberto Fioravanti 100016,2335
To: David Andrews 76137,1056

I am not accusing any of Microsoft forum's sysops. They are always ready to
answer at their best.
I want to state this clearly - Microsoft seems to take easy measures towards
its employees but not towards its corporate policies.
Anyway, if you happened to follow the original message and the replies, it
should be clear that developers aren't very satisfied with the software giant -
and this from OS/2 1.0 beta releases.
Couldn't you blame them?
Thanks anyway - this is not a personal attack - really!

#: 11060 S10/Developers Exchange
    08-Jul-91  09:31:40
Sb: #10698-API notes for DOS5
Fm: Dennis Williamson 73260,350
To: Daniel Norton 76050,2204 (X)

A little side-note regarding support:

WP Corp. is often praised for the excellence of the tech support.  When you
have products that _REQUIRE_ support for even trivial use, you have to have
top-notch support (with a name like Smuckers...).  MS is not totally blameless,
but at least their products are well-designed, functional, internally
consistent, easy to use and easy to support.  You can blame the delays and
flaws in DOS and Windows on IB/M's meddling.

Unfortunately, the IB/M-compatible world is unbelievably complex, thanks to
IB/M (and Intel).  With conflicts among IRQ's, DMA channels, memory addresses,
BIOS compatibilty, bus speeds, etc., it's no wonder that complex software has
problems running on every possible combination and that support is an
ubelievably complex and thankless job.

And, now that Apple is in bed with the demon and the millenium is just nine
years away... :)

Dennis



#: 11068 S10/Developers Exchange
    08-Jul-91  10:14:07
Sb: #10501-API notes for DOS5
Fm: Phil Smith[B&W Int'l] 72561,3421
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200

Devlin, how do I get access to API for DOS 5.  I'm a commercial developer that
wants to hook into it for some specialized functions.

                                   - Phil -

#: 9974 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  09:31:01
Sb: #DM Upgrade and ?
Fm: Mel Lukens 70366,125
To: Todd Martin 76701,157 (X)

Todd:

I know this is my second message today, but how can I get the latest version of
DiskManger.  I just noticed that I have version 3.50 and in some of the
messages, it refers to version 4.xx.  Also, with DiskManger, it will only let
me partition in 32meg blocks...how can I make just one large partition (I've
got an (SCSI) 80 meg HD and a 40 meg HD...both Seagates.  Thanks, Mel Lukens

There is 1 Reply.

#: 9991 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:14:02
Sb: #9974-DM Upgrade and ?
Fm: Al 72451,3315
To: Mel Lukens 70366,125 (X)

I use version 4.20 of DM, which works fine on my setup.  (DOS 5.0), 83 MB drive
w/ 1072 cylinders.  (This is not my boot drive & could not be since DMDRVR is
needed).  I got my version 4.20 by calling the manufacturer.  800-752-1333.

#: 9975 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:31:42
Sb: #Old DOS removal
Fm: Kenneth Green 72617,562
To:  76711,200 (X)

D the D,

    Thanks for your answer.  I removed the old DOS files and the system
rebooted without a hitch.  This 5.0 is really robust.  Thanks again.

Ken the Koncerned



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10568 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:13
Sb: #9975-Old DOS removal
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Kenneth Green 72617,562

<chuckle> I like that, Ken the Koncerned.  Really, I am glad that it worked for
you.  Happy Computing!!


Dev



#: 9982 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  09:40:55
Sb: #EMM386 problems
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Ed McCarthy 76357,677 (X)

When you run mem /c do it OUTSIDE of Windows if you want to see UMB.  I have
also found it useful to run ASQ and to compare ASQ's assessment's with MEM's.
MEM tends to assume that space is already in use, whereas ASQ tends to assume
that space is unused, so they make complementary errors.

You can download ASQ for free from the Qualitas section (8) of PCVENA.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10376 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  16:27:02
Sb: #9982-EMM386 problems
Fm: Ed McCarthy 76357,677
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Bill, thanks for the reply. I should have explained better - I'm not running
mem/c from inside windows, but from the dos prompt. I still don't get any info
on the UMB availability. After looking at other messages, I'm starting to
suspect a BIOS conflict. (I use a PC Brands 386SX). It's not a big deal, since
I'm happy with the 605kb vs. my previous max, but it would be nice to optmize
the system. I'll run ASQ and see what that tells me, too.
Ed


#: 10530 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  01:55:57
Sb: EMM386 problems
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Ed McCarthy 76357,677 (X)

I don't know how large that network card takes up in memory expressed as
haexadecimal but I would start with the following line placed after dos=umb,
which should be right after himem, which should be the first or second thing up
there in some circumstances:

device=c:\dos\emm386.exe m9 x=d000-dc00 i=e000-efff [ram] [noems]

If you do need expanded memory support use the "ram" parameter INSTEAD of the
noems parameter.  If not, then use noems instead AND do not use the m9
parameter either.


1. no it does not

2. yes it should

3. Try the suggestion above and if that doesn't work, increase the range by
100h.  Keep doing that until you get to someting that works.  I would also
decrease the lower range by 100h each time also.  Some network cards exceed
their listed ranges on both ends of the memory address...

Dev



#: 9997 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:25:19
Sb: qbasic
Fm: Al 72451,3315
To: all

Qbasic and Windows:  I cannot get qbasic to run under windows. MY PIF settings
are 600k of memory, no memory locking, 1024k extended 1024k expanded,
non-exclusive, & can run in background.  Qbasic will not run at all, even
outside of windows, without loadfix.com.  Inside of WIndows, without loadfix, I
get "Packed file corrupt".  With loadfix, I just get a blank screen and a
cursor, & I have to use "Terminate"  to close the windows. (I have a 386
running in enh mode, 5MB of ram, * QEMM 5.11. Any suggestions?

#: 9999 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:34:46
Sb: Cruise Control
Fm: Paul Fishbein 76416,2762
To: ALL

I have recently loaded MSDOS 5.0 and with the exception of having to use the
ATTSCR command in my autoexec.bat file (I am on an AT&T 6312), I am very
pleased with 5.0 -- one issue remains. For some reason, Cruise Control, which I
am very fond of (Basically a TSR program that does several things including
blanking the screen after a preset number of minutes) continues to load and
work in every respect, save one. It no longer speeds up the repeat function of
the cursor control. This was especially useful for me and I miss it. Using
various tools, I see that the program kernal still loads and resides where it
is supposed to in high (conventional) memory and works well in all other
respects. Has anyone had this problem and know of a fix or even a logical
approach ? I am tempted to see about loading it at a different memory location
but I suspect that whatever element of DOS code it is addressing has been
relocated to my extended memory -- one of the advantages of 5.0 -- and I may
not be able to fix this without losing one of the key enhancements of 5.0 --
just asking. Thanks.



#: 10002 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  10:36:57
Sb: #DOS 5 media?
Fm: John W. Mathison 76366,3500
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202 (X)

Hi,
Just got DOS 5 as a present on single media 5 1/4".  We have a desktop with a 5
1/4" a: and a laptop with 3 1/2" A:.  I think
I need 3 1/2" disks to install on the laptop.  Is this correct?
If so, how do I get the 3 1/2" disks?  I doubt if my registration
card has even gotten to Microsoft, yet.  I realize I should have
gotten dual-media, but I couldn't wait.  I have my registration
number if that would facilitate anything.  Please advise.
        Thank you.
        john

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10148 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  05:38:06
Sb: #10002-DOS 5 media?
Fm: Steven Haber 72027,263
To: John W. Mathison 76366,3500 (X)

John:

If you can somehow copy the files to 3-1/2" diskettes, you could then copy
them to a temporary subdirectory on your laptop's hard drive and run SETUP
(or is it INSTALL?) from that directory (assuming you have enough disk
space).

However, if you are planning to install DOS on both machines, you should
buy another set up upgrade disks. At the price Egghead is selling it for, it
isn't too painful.

Steven


#: 10569 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:19
Sb: #10002-DOS 5 media?
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: John W. Mathison 76366,3500 (X)

I must advise you to heed Steven's suggestion.  Your license for DOS5 is for
one machine and one machine only.  Please go to your local distributor/retailer
and purchase the 3.5" set for your laptop.




Devlin Spearman Microsoft



#: 10003 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  10:40:16
Sb: window sizing
Fm: John Fields 72421,3336
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200

I installed DOS 5.0 on my clone without any problems, but i have noticed that
when I try to size a window in Windows it appears I am stuck with the original
size or a full screen size that isn't necessarily centered, i.e. i do not get
smooth dragging or stretching. do i need to upgrade the mouse driver i am using
(7.04)  or go to a 400 dpi mouse? or something else yet.

#: 10005 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  11:06:36
Sb: #DOS5+Win3 -> Reboot
Fm: Trevor Garland 72730,514
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)



#: 10006 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:10:00
Sb: #Creating 2k Clusters
Fm: James E. LaBarre 73230,1030
To: Stewart Berman 76366,1664 (X)

You must have an IDE drive.  As I understand you are NOT supposed to lowlevel
format an IDE drive unless you ar a high level techie with lots of special
equipment and/or software.

                                                J.E.L.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10102 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  19:52:55
Sb: #10006-#Creating 2k Clusters
Fm: Stewart Berman 76366,1664
To: James E. LaBarre 73230,1030 (X)

Priam supplies a utility to low level format and test the drive.  It also
includes their version of FDISK and FORMAT.  The problem is that (1) their
FORMAT does not recognize DOS 5.0 and so will not do the primary DOS partition
until you give it a 3.3 DOS diskette to copy the system files from and (2) it
creates 4K clusters.  The next time I do a full backup I will try the DOS 5.0
FDISK and FORMAT combination to see if I can get that to create 2K clusters.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10150 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  05:51:34
Sb: #10102-Creating 2k Clusters
Fm: James E. LaBarre 73230,1030
To: Stewart Berman 76366,1664 (X)

I don't have Priam's tech support number anymore (it's at my prior job),
otherwise I could suggest asking them if they have a newer version (I should
hope so <g>).  Theoretically it should work fine with just FDISK and FORMAT,
but I did the same with my Rodime IDE (it had originally been partitioned with
SpeedStor) and Windows STILL gives me troubles (are you surprised?).

When I (_eventually_) get my upgrade to Disk Technician Gold, I plan to do a
full re-format to one partition under DOS 5.

                                                J.E.L.

#: 10151 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  05:59:45
Sb: #Creating 2k Clusters
Fm: David Pipe 71511,2162
To: Stewart Berman 76366,1664 (X)

I believe FDISK is where the cluster size is determined, so formatting the disk
will not affect the cluster size.  Of course, low level formatting (if that's
an option on your drive) will do it,  because you'll *have* to use fdisk.  I
would just delete the partition, and then create another one (after backing up
the data of course).

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10750 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  20:29:09
Sb: #10151-Creating 2k Clusters
Fm: Stewart Berman 76366,1664
To: David Pipe 71511,2162

Do you have any idea where FDISK puts the cluster size?  I tried zeroing out
the boot sector of the drive (the disk paramater table) but that didn't seem to
help.



#: 10007 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:10:24
Sb: #AMI-ADAPTEC-DOS5-QEMM :(
Fm: Douglas J. Zinger 71020,275
To: all

it is now noon on july 4th and I've run out of both things to try and solutions
from other CIS users to problems that are similar to mine. i've loacated the
messages about the AMI problems but have not found a solution in the messages
i've read. the problem i'm having is basically the following:

       a. the computer will boot up and provide a stable os
          with everything being vanilla dos
       b. through trial and error i have been able to use the area
          between 640K and 1M by excluding certain 4K blocks.
          (the pattern of excluded 4K areas will hopefully mean
           something to someone)
       c. QEMM 5.13 will load and continue provided i do not specify
          ram on the device line. when ram is specified error #13
          appears and i must cold boot.

the details are as follows:

       MACHINE: 80386 AT CLASS with 8M of main memory
                AMI BIOS dated 12/15/89
                ATI VGA WONDER BIOS V3M-1.04A
                ADAPTEC 1542B with AT/SCSI BIOS Version 3.08

       CHECKIT shows the following layout between 640K and 1M
               A000-C000  128K  VGA Video Ram
               C000-C800   32K  Video Ram
               C800-DC00   80K  <nothing>
               DC00-E000   16K  Adapter Rom
               E000-F000   64K  <nothing>
               F000-0000   64K  System Rom
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[More]




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10008 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:10:38
Sb: #10007-#AMI-ADAPTEC-DOS5-QEMM :(
Fm: Douglas J. Zinger 71020,275
To: Douglas J. Zinger 71020,275 (X)

[Continued]

CONFIG.SYS FILE (using boot.sys for multiple configurations)

device = c:\bootsys\boot.sys /cx70 /l2 /n+ /p /d1 /t15

device     = boot.1 DOS 5.0 - virgin dos [nothing loaded in umbs] device     =
boot.set boot=virdos5 device     = c:\dos\setver.exe break      = on lastdrive
= d stacks     = 15,128 buffers    = 30 files      = 95 fcbs       = 8,0 device
= c:\dos\ansi.sys shell      = c:\dos\command.com c:\dos /p /e:1024


device     = boot.2 DOS 5.0 - dos loaded high with emm386.exe and smartdrv.sys
device     = boot.set boot=stddos5 device     = c:\dos\himem.sys /machine:at
device     = c:\dos\emm386.exe x=CA00-CAFF x=CD00-CDFF x=D000-D0FF x=D300-D3FF
x=D600-D6FF x=D900-D9FF ram m9 dos        = umb device     = boot.set umb=y
devicehigh = c:\dos\smartdrv.sys 768 512 break      = on lastdrive  = f stacks
= 0,0 buffers    = 4 files      = 95 fcbs       = 1,0 devicehigh =
c:\dos\ansi.sys shell      = c:\dos\command.com c:\dos /p /e:1024


device    = boot.3 DOS 5.0 with QEMM386 and SUPERPCKWIK - ZSI DEFAULT SYSTEM
device    = boot.set boot=zsideflt device    = c:\desqqemm\qemm386.sys rom ram
lastdrive = d stacks    = 0,0 buffers   = 4 files     = 8 fcbs      = 1,0
device    = c:\desqqemm\loadhi.sys c:\dos\ansi.sys shell     =
c:\dos\command.com c:\dos /p /e:1024

device=boot.end

dos    = high,noumb


[More]




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10009 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:10:54
Sb: #10008-#AMI-ADAPTEC-DOS5-QEMM :(
Fm: Douglas J. Zinger 71020,275
To: Douglas J. Zinger 71020,275 (X)

[Continued]


---------------------------------------------------------------------OBSERVATIONS

in looking at the excludes for the second configuration the following pattern
was observed for the memory between CA00 and DC00.

              CA00-CAFF  4K   exclude         i hope this pattern means
              CB00-CCFF  8K   UMB             something to somebody.
              CD00-CDFF  4K   exclude         it is just to regular
              CE00-CFFF  8K   UMB             not to be the result of
              D000-D0FF  4K   exclude         something i am missing.
              D100-D2FF  8K   UMB
              D300-D3FF  4K   exclude
              D400-D5FF  8K   UMB
              D600-D6FF  4K   exclude
              D700-D8FF  8K   UMB
              D900-D9FF  4K   exclude
              DA00-DBFF  8K   UMB


the third configuration provides me with the following dump.

QEMM Exception #13 at FFFF:FFFF Error Code:0000 AX=3E74   BX=03E6   CX=FF34
DX=FFFF   SI=FFFF   DI=FFFF BP=0708   DS=FFFF   ES=9087   SS=9087   SP=FDF4
FLAGS=7FD7 INSTRUCTION: 00 EA 5B E0 00 F0 31 32 2F 31 35 2F 38 39 00

THANKS IN ADVANCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!       zinger




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10013 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:33:12
Sb: #10009-AMI-ADAPTEC-DOS5-QEMM :(
Fm: Skip Lutz 76702,1332
To: Douglas J. Zinger 71020,275 (X)

Doug,

I think you need something to work with memory managers for the 1542. I'll
respond further via e-mail as I don't have much space here.

Skip

#: 10010 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  11:23:18
Sb: Novell ELS I
Fm: Eric Hart 71041,44
To: Jay Pomerantz 70611,3172

Jay,

The answer is "no, DOS5 is not supported with 2.0a. Upgrade to Netware 2.2,
5-user".

2.0a has not been supported by Novell for about 4 years, and there is no plan
to produce an ANET5. In fact, as you probably know, there is no ANET4 either.

That said, you could try a few things. I haven't tried these, so I take no
responsibility if you crash and burn your server (a possibility)!

You could try using SETVER to fool ANET3 into thinking that it is working
with DOS3.

You could get the IPX and NET5 (or EMSNET5 or XMSNET5) that go with Netware
2.2 for your adapter card. Try using those. I know the other direction (i.e.,
using ANET2 on a 2.2 network) does  work, with one big caveat -- CAPTURE (the
new version of SPOOL) won't work. I have no idea if it will work in the other
direction.

I don't recommend these, though. Upgrade to 2.2 (it's a *lot* nicer than
2.0a!) or just stick with DOS 3.3.

For more info, GO NOVA and checkout the section "2.1x and before".

--EH


#: 10344 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:05:04
Sb: Novell ELS I
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Jay Pomerantz 70611,3172

Jay,

You may need an upgrade from Novell. Check your Getting Started Manual on the
procedure to get installed once you get the proper version from Novell.
Basically, you have version 2.0 and you need at least 2.1. DOS 5 ships with an
upgrade for both NET5 and the IPX object file, but I think you will need at
least version 2.1 to start with.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 10014 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:34:37
Sb: #"VIEW FILE CONTENTS" Bug
Fm: Robert C Prim 76467,1406
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

[ Abbreviation: "VFC" refers to the View File Contents command on the File menu
in the DOSSHELL window of MS-DOS 5.0. ]

        Entering SHELL, C:\ is the selected directory. VFC functions properly
to exhibit (and re-exhibit) any file in C:\.
        If, however, any other directory is selected, VFC becomes unavailable
(fades on the File menu).  Furthermore, if one now reselects C:\, VFC is no
longer available there either!!
        Exiting and then reentering SHELL restores the previous starting
situation.

        I have compared DOSSHELL.EXE as now incorporated in my system with a
new copy expanded from my 5.0 Upgrade disks. They are identical.

        Can you help me??  I don't know what to do next. Robert Prim.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10163 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  07:28:28
Sb: #10014-"VIEW FILE CONTENTS" Bug
Fm: Dennis Williamson 73260,350
To: Robert C Prim 76467,1406 (X)

When you change directories in DOSSHELL, no file is selected.  Operations,
including View File Contents, that act on files are greyed when no file is
selected.  If you click on a file name (or otherwise select it with the
keyboard), you should find the command available.

Dennis



#: 10015 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  11:35:53
Sb: #286 & UMBs
Fm: Jonathan Deull 72037,536
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Using an AST 286, have successfully loaded DOS5 high and it runs great s so
far.  Is there a product that will allow me to access the UMBs for TSRs and
Programs.  I understand that EMM386 would do the job for a 386, but how do I do
it?  Thanks.  Jonathan

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10570 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:27
Sb: #10015-286 & UMBs
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Jonathan Deull 72037,536

Check into QRAM, a product by Quarterdeck.  You can get more info in the
Quarterdeck section of the PC Vendor B Forum(go PCVENB, section 1).....




Devlin Spearman Microsoft



#: 10016 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  11:40:17
Sb: DOS5/WIN3/High mem
Fm: Wesley Struebing 70303,402
To: James Reinertson 72317,3075

Hi, there;  I throw out a question for anyone out there.  What's the difference
between WIN3's EMM386.SYS and DOS5's EMM386.EXE?  If I'm running WIN3, do I
really need WIN's EMM driver?  I've already loaded DOS's in my CONFIG.SYS by
the time Windows starts.  It doesn't cause any conflict, and I'm at least
attempting to run without EMS (no apps that require it). As long as I'm here, I
have question 2 - TSR's loaded high that hang when executed but run fine in
conventional memory.  Anything I can do from my end about that?  Or go back and
tell the authors to fix their program to run in a UMB? Thanks much in
advance... Wes Struebing

#: 10017 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  11:44:51
Sb: Paradox and DOS 5.0
Fm: jared cameron 75556,1163
To: Matthew Ackermann

I have less memory that you do, then. I have a 1 meg at system and a 2 meg Boca
AT board. Subsequently, I tried reducing the XMS allotment and again received
the Paradox won't load message, so -- at least for me -- assigning the extra
XMS solved the problem. Alas, I am too technically illiterate to provide even a
theory on WHY it worked; however, playing with the allotments of EMS/XMS might,
I had hoped, get your problem solved. Best!        jared Cameron

#: 10018 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  11:48:51
Sb: #Prob. w/ reformatting
Fm: greg 70650,220
To: all

since this ver of DOS is an upgrade it must always be installed over an old
version. This is a problem because if a wish to do a reformat of my drive after
a low level reformat I must first install an old version of DOS.
    Any solutions?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10571 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:34
Sb: #10018-Prob. w/ reformatting
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: greg 70650,220

Create a set of working DOS floppies by using your Upgrade diskettes(pop in the
first one , go to the floppy prompt, and type "setup /f").  Refer to page 9 of
the getting started manual.  The MS-ODS 5.0 FORMAT and FDISK commands are on
the Startup diskette that you create with the SETUP program.....




Dev



#: 10020 S8/BASIC Conversions
    04-Jul-91  11:57:32
Sb: #Edit.Com & QBasic
Fm: Wesley Struebing 70303,402
To: Greg Wolking 71630,20 (X)

Greg; I definitely agree that QBASIC is head-ad-shoulders above GWBASIC or
BASICA, but I have several questions.  Are .BAS files for QBASIC stored in
straight ASCII so you can use EDITOR on them?  I must admit that is the one
feature I like better about GWBASIC.  Also, how close to compiled QuickBasic is
QBASIC?  In other words, if I fid a manual for QuickBasic, will it stand me in
good stead with QBASIC?  Anyway (and this dates me!) I've had a lot of
experience with WATFOR and WATFIV, and QBASIC has a lot of the feel of those
interpreters.  I like it! Wes

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10120 S8/BASIC Conversions
    04-Jul-91  22:13:35
Sb: #10020-#Edit.Com & QBasic
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: Wesley Struebing 70303,402 (X)

Wes,
   Yes, QBasic saves in ASCII format. In fact, the "Editor" is actually QBasic
with the interpreter/syntax checker disabled. QBasic is almost identical to
QuickBASIC; the main differences are that QBasic does not support
multiple-module programs and it cannot compile .EXE files. The other features
are the same; in fact it is possible to compile QBasic files with QuickBasic
with few (if any) modifications. Just for the hell of it, I compiled all of the
sample programs supplied with DOS 5.0 without any modifications whatsoever.
   I am definitely a fan of QuickBASIC. I have the BASIC Professional
Development System version 7.1, and I wrote a _major_ database application for
my company entirely within QuickBasic. The program consists of six different
modules each containing a dozen or so functions and uses a library of custom
functions I created (also with QBX). The resulting (stand-alone)
EXE file is about 355K, uses EMS memory if available, is mouse-aware, and will
run on ANY PC or clone with 512K of RAM and a hard disk.
   I was originally going to use dBase for the project, but that would mean
that the dozen offices around the country that use it would have had to buy
their own copies of dBASE. Using QBX meant that I had total control over the
program, and those offices wouldn't have to spend lots of bucks and waste tons
of disk space on an application program they would probably never use for
anything else. (Thanks, MicroSoft!  <plug>).
   The PDS may seem pricey, but the ISAM database engine that comes with it is
outstanding. As far as getting a manual for QuickBASIC, why not just get
QuickBASIC? The program is readily available and I have seen it for under $100.
True, it's not as full-blown as the PDS, but you can certainly use it to create
your own .EXE files and play with it long enough to see that BASIC truly can be
a POWERFUL language!
   Greg.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10132 S8/BASIC Conversions
    04-Jul-91  23:04:22
Sb: #10120-#Edit.Com & QBasic
Fm: Wesley Struebing 70303,402
To: Greg Wolking 71630,20 (X)

Thanks, Greg.  I had never really considered BASIC for other tha
quick-anddirties (and generating Lotto numbers...), but you've certainly given
me something to think about.  I have a database to design for some customers,
and a EXE file as opposed to a ton of DB files plus their drivers sounds
interesting.  How easily do GWBASIC files convert? Wes

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10471 S8/BASIC Conversions
    05-Jul-91  23:38:04
Sb: #10132-#Edit.Com & QBasic
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: Wesley Struebing 70303,402

Wes,
   A lot depends on how well the GWBASIC program was written. If the logic is
"clean", the conversion should be fairly straightforward, but you have to watch
out for some "tricks" that work in GWBASIC that won't in QBX. For example:
   10 FOR I = 1 TO 10
   20  X = (some expression based on I)
   30  IF X = 9 THEN I = 10: NEXT I: GOTO 100
   40  do some other stuff here
   50 NEXT I
   60  handle normal exit; X never evaluated to 9
   70 GOTO 120 ' skip special handling
   100 handle "loop abort" when X did evaluate to 9
   120 PROGRAM CONTINUES The above code fragment will work just fine in
GWBASIC, but QBX will generate a "NEXT WITHOUT FOR" error; there can be only
one NEXT statement to match each FOR. The equivalent code in QBX would be
something like:
 FOR I = 1 TO 10
   X = WHATEVER
   IF X = 9 THEN
     EXIT FOR
   ELSE
     OTHER STATEMENTS
   END IF
 NEXT I
 IF X = 9 THEN handle special case

[More]




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10472 S8/BASIC Conversions
    05-Jul-91  23:38:10
Sb: #10471-#Edit.Com & QBasic
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: Greg Wolking 71630,20 (X)

[Continued]

  Note the much greater clarity and flexibility afforded by the multi-line
IF..THEN..ELSE format used by QBasic and QBX; this is FAR superior to GWBASIC.
  Another trap to watch out for is multiple FOR statements that use a GOTO to
branch to a common NEXT statement; a lot of game programs use this for timing
loops, as in:
   10 FOR I = 1 to 10:GOTO 50  ' short delay
   20 FOR I = 1 to 50:GOTO 50  ' medium delay
   30 FOR I = 1 to 100:GOTO 50 ' long delay
   40 FOR I = 1 to 500 ' really long delay
   50 NEXT I:RETURN
  Again, GWBASIC runs this just fine, but QBX and QBasic say NO WAY; the
equivalent would be:
   DelayLoop:
     FOR i = 1 to delaycount
     NEXT I
     RETURN
  You would then assign an appropriate value to delaycount and use "GOSUB
DelayLoop" wherever you needed it. An even better solution in QBasic/QBX would
be to create a SUB for the delay:
    SUB WasteTime(delayvalue)
      DIM i '(i is local to the SUB and will disappear when the SUB exits)
      FOR i = 1 TO delayvalue: NEXT I
    EXIT SUB
  Within the program, you could then use "WasteTime 100" or "WasteTime 5000"
for your delay statements.

[More]






There is 1 Reply.

#: 10473 S8/BASIC Conversions
    05-Jul-91  23:38:15
Sb: #10472-Edit.Com & QBasic
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: Greg Wolking 71630,20 (X)

[Continued]

   The previous example uses one of the main advantages of QBasic/QBX: the
creation of local variables. In GWBASIC, all variables except those in DEFFN
functions are global; that is they are available to any statement within the
program. In QBX, any variables you create within a SUB or FUNCTION procedure
are local to that procedure unless you explicitly declare them as SHARED. This
enables you to use the same variable names in different subroutines without
fear of clobbering data somewhere else in the program. Also, the memory
required by local variables is released when the SUB or FUNCTION exits. In
GWBASIC, EVERY variable you create consumes memory until the program ends.
   QBX is also a little more picky about syntax than GWBASIC; for example, you
can use
   IF X = 3 THEN 200 ELSE 300 in GWBASIC, but in QBX you must use
   IF X = 3 THEN GOTO 200 ELSE GOTO 300 since QBX does not allow implicit
GOTO's (or GOSUB's) in THEN/ELSE clauses.
   However, the automatic syntax checking feature in QBX catches these errors
as soon as you enter the line and tells you that the GOTO (or GOSUB) is
missing. Another nice feature with the syntax checker is that the editor
autmatically provides correct spacing for you; if you type the line
  PRINT "X is"X"Y is"Y QBX will convert it to
  PRINT "X is"; X; "Y is"; Y as soon as you move the cursor to the next line.
This makes your code much more readable. I could go on, but I think this reply
is already too long. I am sure that there are other minor differences, but all
in all conversion should not be too difficult if the code is logically clean to
start with.
  Greg.



#: 10023 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  12:04:19
Sb: DOS5,QEMM,WIN3 !
Fm: Peter B. Cook 70662,646
To: Oliver Luedtke 100012,2636 (X)

I'm also a faithful QEMM (and DESQview) user.  I just got DOS 5.0.   Your
Autoexec.bat and Config.sys might be useful.  Can you send?

Thanks!

#: 10025 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  12:14:11
Sb: MSDOS 5 and QEMM -- Help
Fm: Greg Perlstein 76667,353
To: Bob Roosth 72727,601 (X)

Bob,
     I don't know for sure, but I am aware that QEMM is now in version 5.13.
This might be making the difference. I'm running 5.13 and DOS5 without any
problem on a clone 386/33.
     This might give you something to think about until you get a more
definitive answer.

Greg



#: 10788 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:21:44
Sb: MSDOS 5 and QEMM -- Help
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: Bob Roosth 72727,601

Bob,

In order to get access to UMB's, you must have the following:
       1--extended memory above the 1 meg line
       2--the statement "DOS=HIGH,UMB" in the CONFIG.SYS file
       3--the statement "DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS" in CONFIG.SYS
       4--the statement "DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE" in CONFIG.SYS,
          with either the NOEMS or RAM option specified.

Please note that the example assumes you installed the MS-DOS 5.0 Upgrade to
the C:\DOS directory.  If not, you must adjust the DEVICE statements to point
to the proper directory.  For more information, please check out Chapter 12 of
the manual, pp. 313--332.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 10026 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  12:14:15
Sb: Which Cache Should I Use
Fm: Greg Perlstein 76667,353
To: Jay Gibberman 74656,3150 (X)

Jay,
     I vote for HyperDisk as well. It leaves Smartdrive in the dust.
     As for speed _and_ safety, well, there is some antagonism between these
two parameters. With delayed writes ON, speed is greatly enhanced, but if your
machine is constantly locking up, or if your power supply is not reliable, then
delayed writes may not be for you. In my 5 years of computing, I have yet to
have my power supply fail me, nor has any of my computer lockups affected
HyperDisk. But if you're a worrier, leave delayed writes OFF on any cache you
use. Even with that, I think HyperDisk is the fastest.

Greg



#: 10027 S3/Hardware Issues
    04-Jul-91  12:15:26
Sb: DOS 5 DISK PROBLEMS
Fm: James Berg 76046,1500
To: Richard Long [UltraStor] 75500,3561

I set it up a number of ways, from heavily loaded, using QEMM, down to bare
bones, with nothing high.  Oh, well!  Until the hardware manufacturer takes up
5 (his 800 # says please no Dos5 questions before July 8), I'll use a software
cache.
                                         Thanks.


#: 10290 S3/Hardware Issues
    05-Jul-91  11:47:54
Sb: DOS 5 DISK PROBLEMS
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: James Berg 76046,1500 (X)

James,

I hope your hardware vendor answers your questions too. It would be interesting
to see the answer. I'm glad that Smartdrv will at least temporarily solve your
problems.

Nate



#: 10028 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  12:17:47
Sb: #The Most Memory
Fm: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363
To: all

        I am using dos 5, ndos and qemm386.
The result is 638032 bytes free. The report
from mem is
        msdos   14448
        qemm386  2416
        ndos              256.
Everything else is loaded high or in HMA.


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10058 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  15:17:16
Sb: #10028-#The Most Memory
Fm: Ron Holtz 72531,1641
To: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363 (X)

Heck, I got that beat:

638,304 bytes free (623.34 K) on a Compaq Deskpro running:

DR-DOS 5

Think of all the great stuff I can do with that extra 272 bytes !

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10113 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  20:58:37
Sb: #10058-#The Most Memory
Fm: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363
To: Ron Holtz 72531,1641 (X)

Ron,
        Tell me more about dr-dos.
        Are you using UMB's ? HMA?
        Can you tell me the contents of your first 640k?
Gerald


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10187 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:27:49
Sb: #10113-#The Most Memory
Fm: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363
To: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363 (X)

Ron,
        I've tweaked it a bit.
Now I have 639,984 bytes free,
and in low memory:
        msdos   12,560
        qemm386  2,416
        ndos            256
.
Gerald


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10333 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  14:00:46
Sb: #10187-#The Most Memory
Fm: Ron Holtz 72531,1641
To: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363 (X)

Gerald, I tweaked mine a little more and have 639,504 bytes free...so you've
got me beat by 480 ! Darn.

DR-DOS 5.0 is a DOS-compatible operating system produced by Digital Research
Inc.. On paper, at least, MSDOS5 and DRDOS5 are virtually identical, except
that DRDOS5 has been available for almost a year now and most of the bugs have
been worked out already. Version 6 is due to be released within a couple
months, according to the rumor mill. DRDOS has the same sort of memory
management functions that MSDOS5 has, except that the terminology is slightly
different. DRDOS5 allows applications, etc.. to be loaded into "upper memory"
which MSDOS5 refers to as UMB's. It also can load the operating system kernel
to "high memory" (same as MS's HMA).

In other words, DRDOS5 will do the same things as MSDOS5, except that there
will be fewer problems since it's been around longer and most of the problems
have been addressed. Personally, I've been using it about 2 months, and have
had only the following problems: a shareware virus detection program called
VIRUS DETECTIVE could not recognize some of the DOS files; the PCTOOLS "MI"
command reports an error when lower memory access is engaged, and some I/O
address problems with a Novell network shell that I'm still trying to
understand.                                  Ron.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10363 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  15:45:20
Sb: #10333-#The Most Memory
Fm: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363
To: Ron Holtz 72531,1641 (X)

Ron,
        Thanks for the info on drdos.
        I'll take a look atvthe upcoming version.
Gerald

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10411 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  17:57:54
Sb: #10363-The Most Memory
Fm: Ron Holtz 72531,1641
To: GERALD E. SACKS 76266,363 (X)

Gerald,

You're welcome.  You might want to check out the DR-DOS forum (DRFORUM) where
you'll find people that have been using it longer than I have and would be able
to answer questions you might have.

In the meantime, don't get too comfortable with that 480 byte lead; I still
have some room to "tweak"!

Ron...

#: 10029 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  12:18:04
Sb: DOS 5 RAM Savings?
Fm: Michael Blackmer 73157,3466
To: Anybody

An interesting observation when DOS 5 was loaded...

I have a 286 with 1M RAM.  Before the DOS change (using 3.3), CHKDSK showed
589,248 of 655,360 available; Windows PM showed 650K available; and Excel
showed 452 of 472KB free.  After DOS 5 was loaded, CHKDSK increased to 627,040
of 655,360 available, but Windows dropped to 621K available, and Excel dropped
to 423 of 444 KB free.

I understand the increased available RAM under DOS, but why is Windows worse
off?d

#: 10033 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  12:42:05
Sb: #Logitech Rodent drivers
Fm: Frank Emens 72415,571
To: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164 (X)

Charlie, Logitech has a bbs at 414-795-0408.  Grab it while the holiday rates
are in effect and download MOUSE501.COM and MOUSE501.SYS.  They are compatible
with DOSSHELL.




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10059 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  15:18:04
Sb: #10033-#Logitech Rodent drivers
Fm: Carolyn Andre/Chgo 72207,2637
To: Frank Emens 72415,571 (X)

Frank = want to try that Logitech BBS again? 414-795-0408 is disconnected or no
longer in service as of 17:05 CST



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10080 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  17:35:08
Sb: #10059-#Logitech Rodent drivers
Fm: Frank Emens 72415,571
To: Carolyn Andre/Chgo 72207,2637 (X)

FOR I = 1 TO 1000
  PRINT "SCUZE ME!"
NEXT

Make that 415-795-0408.

Sorry!




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10117 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  21:40:12
Sb: #10080-Logitech Rodent drivers
Fm: Carolyn Andre/Chgo 72207,2637
To: Frank Emens 72415,571 (X)

Ten Kew, sir!  I blindly entered the number into my telecom program, ignoring
that 414 wasn't likely the right area code <g>.  Should soon have my Dexxa
rodent zipping along properly.



#: 10174 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  08:14:01
Sb: #10033-#Logitech Rodent drivers
Fm: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164
To: Frank Emens 72415,571 (X)

Frank: I already have rev. 5.01 of the mouse drivers...they came with the mouse
(which is a replacement for an old VisiOn mouse). For some reason, when I load
Windows 3.0 (which I bought bundled with the mouse!), things *sometimes* go
flaky....the mouse cursor jumps all over the screen, and the buttons aren't
recognized--Alt+F4 exits Windows, but the driver is corrupted, and stays so on
a warm boot. BRS is the only solution. I've been so preoccupied with DOS 5 and
Win 3.0 installation over the past week that I haven't gotten around to sending
in the registration cards <g.>

  <Charlie>

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10419 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  18:42:03
Sb: #10174-Logitech Rodent drivers
Fm: DWIGHT BICKEL 76477,3447
To: Charlie Dose' 75116,1164

Logitech has a separate program to install a special driver for Windows. It's
all in the documentation or a README file.  I followed those instructions and
have no trouble with my Logitech in Windows.



#: 10046 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  13:51:15
Sb: Hyperdisk
Fm: Peter Colley 76012,27
To: Henry V. 76476,2502 (X)

Henry, are you enabling "staged writes" with the "s" parameter when you use
Hyperdisk?  That is what really gives the program the big advantage over
Smartdrv (I beleive).  Pete




#: 10047 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  13:54:23
Sb: #PeachTree III w/ DOS 5.0
Fm: Lawrence M. Lutton 73210,3510
To: All

Just installed MS-DOS 5.0.  PeachTree III utility menu crashes.

According to PeachTree technical support no other operations are affected and
they will release a new "batch" which solves the problem.

Anybody know any more about this?

There are 3 Replies.

#: 10358 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:27:27
Sb: #10047-PeachTree III w/ DOS 5.0
Fm: brian mullan 72247,1556
To: Lawrence M. Lutton 73210,3510

I've tried Peachtree under DRDOS v5 and get 623K of free memory and it ran
without any problems...

#: 10420 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  18:50:04
Sb: #10047-PeachTree III w/ DOS 5.0
Fm: Richard 76236,173
To: Lawrence M. Lutton 73210,3510

Lawrence:

I, too, am a Peachtree III user and know that the Backup/Restore utility is not
compatible.  When I spoke with the Technical Support folks at PTree, they said
they were aware of the problem(s) and would be addressing them
"soon"...........wow!  If that wasn't a non-committal answer, nothing was!

Frankly, I think Peachtree's support sucks the big one.  But, this is the MSDOS
forum so I can't say too much out of character.  Where else can we talk about
Peachtree issues......they don't have a forum (or do they?).

Until later..........


      [C:\\Richard->San Diego]



#: 10616 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  06:23:14
Sb: #10047-PeachTree III w/ DOS 5.0
Fm: Bob Flowers 75006,156
To: Lawrence M. Lutton 73210,3510

Gee, when I called them a few months ago with my problems re: PeachtreeIII,
they all thought I was nuts!  (I was running Beta for last 6 mos.)  My problems
were with doing backups to floppies from the utility menu.  They told me to use
the SET command to disable the math co-processor.  Didn't work though, as I
have 2 machines, 1 with, 1 without math co-processor. Needless to say, I now
use a tape drive to back up to avoid the lock-ups which were and still are very
common with Peachtree III.  (AND it took 2 days for them to get back to me,
cause of their crazy support policies, you know, you have to call a "Credit
Card" support number, and are charged for the support, if any, or wait for the
return call.!!)

#: 10048 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  13:54:49
Sb: #FixShift didn't work
Fm: Howard B. Larson 70154,1032
To: Howard B. Larson 70154,1032 (X)

Nate,

I've traced my cursor key problem to emm386.exe:  Simply loading it will cause
the problem.  I've included a listing of config.sys. There was no autoexec.bat.

DEVICE=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /e:2048 /p files=20
buffers=20 DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS /machine:1 rem device=c:\td\tdh386.sys
device=c:\dos\emm386.exe ram rem device=c:\dos\ansi.sys /x rem
device=c:\dmdrvr.bin rem device=c:\exdskbio.drv

Any ideas?

Howard

#: 10349 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:05:46
Sb: FixShift didn't work
Fm: Nate Boxer 76711,202
To: Howard B. Larson 70154,1032 (X)

Howard,

Have you removed Himem.sys from your config.sys (as well as Emm386.exe)? This
would determine whether or not you were experiencing a problem with either a
memory conflict or the way Himem is perceiving the A20 line. If the problem
goes away then put Himem back in. If the problem is still gone, then load DOS
high... Then reinstall Emm386...

I have a feeling it's either with Himem.sys and it's A20 line control or
Emm386.exe and an Upper Memory mapping conflict. If it's neither of these then
you might want to contact Phoenix, but there's a lot to try before that. Try
the different Himem switches and try excluding ranges in the Upper Memory Area
with Emm386.

Nate Boxer, MSDOS section leader



#: 10049 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  13:58:13
Sb: #DOS5: TIME & DATE BUG!!
Fm: gregory knox 73137,1416
To: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Re the time and date bug: Why is only the tail end of this thread which is only
a couple of days old,available to be read? I know there is an alleged bug
regarding the time and date but I only have enough information to say that and
little more. You're not trying to keep us in the dark on stuff like this are
you? Thanks

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10099 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  19:34:32
Sb: #10049-DOS5: TIME & DATE BUG!!
Fm: Bob Retelle 76702,1466
To: gregory knox 73137,1416

Greg... the "Scroll rate" here in the MSDOS forum must be extremely high..

There are so many new messages being added daily that "old" ones are being
bumped off into the bit bucket so fast that you'll miss them if you don't drop
in almost every day..!

It's a real problem in popular Forums like this one.. unfortunately there's no
easy answer, other than checking back more often...  if you use an "Online
Automater" like TAPCIS, you could have it log on, capture all new messages,
then log off and let you read them offline... you could even have it do that
automatically every night while you sleep, and save the messages to disk for
you to read the next day...

BobR

#: 10831 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  01:49:18
Sb: #10049-DOS5: TIME & DATE BUG!!
Fm: Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157
To: gregory knox 73137,1416

Gregory,

No, we aren't trying to keep anybody in the dark.  The fact is that this forum
is so active that messages scroll away in 1-3 days, depending on the action.
It's my understanding that we are at the largest available message queue that
we can possibly get, so the only solution, as another user mentioned, is to
check in frequently.

The "alleged bug" with TIME and DATE is that on systems which don't have
standard clocks, the time and date are reset when the power is turned off. That
is because MS-DOS writes to the standard clock, and if a system doesn't have a
standard clock, MS-DOS can't possibly know how to access whatever special clock
system has been installed.

Todd Martin, MSDOS Section Leader




#: 10050 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  13:59:02
Sb: PROBLEM UPLOADING FILE
Fm: IRWIN NEMETZ 75255,1006
To: [F] SYSOP (X)

DEAR SYSOP,

        WHEN I TRY TO UPLOAD MOUSE5.ZIP USING KERMIT, BEFORE I START I GET A
MESSAGE FROM YOUR END ABOUT A PARAMETER BEING OUT OF RANGE. NO CLUE. IT'S IN
YOUR HANDS NOW

TNANKS,

IRWIN NEMETZ [75255,1006]

#: 10053 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  14:12:54
Sb: #EMM386.EXE Conflict
Fm: Howard B. Larson 70154,1032
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate,

I've traced my cursor key problem to emm386.exe:  Simply loading
it will cause the problem.  I've included a listing of config.sys.
There was no autoexec.bat.

DEVICE=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM C:\DOS\ /e:2048 /p
files=20
buffers=20
DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS /machine:1
rem device=c:\td\tdh386.sys
device=c:\dos\emm386.exe ram
rem device=c:\dos\ansi.sys /x
rem device=c:\dmdrvr.bin
rem device=c:\exdskbio.drv

Any ideas?

Howard

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10159 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  06:37:17
Sb: #10053-EMM386.EXE Conflict
Fm: Larry Boyd 76530,672
To: Howard B. Larson 70154,1032 (X)

Howard;

        Pardon me for jumping into this discussion, but I had the same problem,
but including screwed up area selection in BCX and loss of disk interrupts with
fastback plus.

        My problem was solved by using 386max (5.10) and eliminating emm386.
However,  I needed to set the emm size to 640k, now everything works great.

    Incidentally,  I let 386max (Maximize) load all the high memory areas and
with a hard/floppy disk bios (seagate st22r), a scsi bios (future d domain) and
reserved areas for VGA,  I was still able to load everything into high memory.
(I use DOS=high without the UMB).

        I hope this gets you over your problem. Larry Boyd

#: 10055 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  14:36:24
Sb: #Mouse problem
Fm: John Piwaron 76507,3475
To: Paul Oakes 70006,401 (X)

On a recent CIS session, about 10 minutes into it, I lost use of my mouse. It's
a Logitech serial mouse with the most recent driver (5.01).  When I exited, I
noticed that other programs still recognized the mouse. At that point I
reloaded CIM 1.34. After that, the mouse started working with CIM again. And
about 3 or 4 days ago, during a visit to the Dos forum, I lost the connection
to CIS through a "time out" error. CIS then disconnected. When I tried
relogging, CIS wouldn't let me back in.  Later in the day though it would.
These are unusual problems but I feel I should mention them. Any ideas on what
the problem is? John 76507,3475

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11083 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  12:19:14
Sb: #10055-Mouse problem
Fm: Paul Oakes [CSCS} 70006,401
To: John Piwaron 76507,3475

John,

Had you viewed a GIF graphic at any point during your session?

I don't check here all that often it'd be a good idea to move this discussion
to the DOS CIM Support Forum (GO CIS:CIMSUP).

-Paul

#: 10061 S9/Shareware (MS-DOS)
    04-Jul-91  15:31:38
Sb: MS-DOS,V5.0
Fm: Alex Whitehouse 76430,510
To: ALL

I purchased a copy of DOS 5.0 two weekends ago.  After MANY, MANY wasted hours
trying to get it to work properly on my 80286 system I've finally given up.
Although my system exceeds the "System Requirements" listed on the packaging
for the software, it obviously requires a lot more than that.  The italicized
disclaimer on the packaging was inadequate warning of all the problems that can
be encountered with this new operating system.  Fortunately I made a backup
copy of my hard drive; I found it necessary to completely rebuild my hard drive
several times! DOS 5.0 requires much more current versions of hard disk driver
software and peripheral drivers than I ever expected.  The new DOS would not
recognize the extended partition on my MiniScribe 6053 hard drive.  It would
not recognize or take advantage of the extended memory on my system board. I
will return my software to the retail vendor with a few angry words this
weekend.  They claimed it was "easy to install" and that I "should have no
problem whatsoever" with system compatibility. BUYER BEWARE.  MICROSOFT DOS 5.0
ISN'T FOR EVERY SYSTEM. ALSO-SHAME ON YOU, MICROSOFT, FOR NOT WARNING UNWARY
BUYERS WITH WARNINGS ABOUT THE NEED TO HAVE VERY NEW SYSTEM AND PERIPHERAL
DRIVERS   B E F O R E   THEY ATTEMPT TO USE YOUR NEW SOFTWARE! YOUR LEGAL
DISCLAIMER WOULD CERTAINLY PROTECT YOUR @##ES, BUT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY WARNING
TO CONSUMERS ABOUT ALL THE FRUSTRATION AND HOURS OF HARD WORK THEY MAY
ENCOUNTER TRYING TO REBUILD THEIR SYSTEMS AFTER TRYING TO INSTALL THE NEW DOS!
(Your UNINSTALL utility didn't work!)

#: 10062 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  15:38:10
Sb: #DOS VER 5.0
Fm: John Alway 73730,2337
To: ALL

        Could someone tell me what does DOS version 5.0 offer that the next
version down doesn't?

                                                        Thanks,  John.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10177 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:15:46
Sb: #10062-#DOS VER 5.0
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: John Alway 73730,2337 (X)

The July issues of PC Magazine and BYTE (and probably 6 other magazines)
contain explanations.  Whether DOS 5 offers any advantages to you depends on
what kind of equipment you use.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10416 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  18:32:07
Sb: #10177-DOS VER 5.0
Fm: John Alway 73730,2337
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Thanks, I happened to just get a copy of that issue of Byte magazine.
                                John.

#: 10065 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  16:05:19
Sb: #USR/EMM386.SYS Problems
Fm: Computers By Design 70007,4634
To: ALL

I am running on a Leading Edge 386/25 with 4MB RAM and a Math Coprocessor
Installed.  My problem is that I cannot use my US Robotics HST modem (internal)
at anything faster than a 2400 baud connection when I have EMM386.SYS installed
in my config.sys.  It will dial and connect, but as soon as I hit a quick
combination of keys, the modem seems to lock up.  The recieve is getting my
typed characters, but I don't see them coming to my screen.  I thought at first
it was a Hardware Interupt problem, until I removed everything but my Modem,
STB VGA Card, and my IDE Controller.  Then I started playing wit the config.sys
and removed the emm386.sys and now it works.

  Does anyone know of any patches, or anything I can do to use the EMM286.SYS
and also use my HST at 9600+ connections?   Any help would be greatly
appreciated!

    Gary
     Barr




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10082 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  17:45:19
Sb: #10065-USR/EMM386.SYS Problems
Fm: Donald Quinlan 72460,2354
To: Computers By Design 70007,4634

I have the same problem with a US Robotics 2400 internal modem on a Northgate
386-20 with 640+384 RAM.  I experienced a similar problem using QEMM386.  Is
there a setting that prevents conflicts between the ?EMM386 and the modem?

#: 10180 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:16:03
Sb: #10065-USR/EMM386.SYS Problems
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Computers By Design 70007,4634

Does the modem's manual say anything about the address space that the modem
uses?  Maybe you need to tell EMM386 to exclude a UMB area that the modem uses.




#: 10068 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  16:09:20
Sb: #SERVER err. message
Fm: Ron White 76376,500
To: All

When trying to use SETVER, I get the usual warning message about how the
program I'm setting a version for may or may not work... That's fine. But I
also get a message that says "Setver could not find the SETVER.EXE file."

OK, what does that message *really* mean? Isn't it nonsensical that a file
can't find itself? If SETVER.EXE couldn't be found, how was I able to run it in
the first place.

More to the point, what do I do so that I can use the SETVER command. (I have
the proper device line for SETVER in my CONFIG.SYS file.) The manual gives no
explanation of what the error message means--really or otherwise-nor what to do
in that situation.

Thanks, Ron

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10081 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  17:42:05
Sb: #10068-#SERVER err. message
Fm: Donald Quinlan 72460,2354
To: Ron White 76376,500 (X)

I am having the same problem. I get the "SETVER file not found" even when I am
running it from c:\dos.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10130 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  22:54:23
Sb: #10081-#SERVER err. message
Fm: Ron White 76376,500
To: Donald Quinlan 72460,2354 (X)

Yeah, I tried running it from the DOS directory too, but no luck.

I sometimes think the programmers at Microsoft stick just any ol' error message
on regardless of what's really happening. If, for example, you're using Word
for Windows and you try to call up a document file on a network and someone
else already is editing it, Winword gives you the message: "File does not
exist." Not true. It exists, but you're being protected from two people trying
to edit the file at the same time. That's a nice feature, but the first time I
encountered the error message it drove me batty because it didn't describe what
the situation really was.

Ron

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10962 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  18:51:07
Sb: #10130-#SERVER err. message
Fm: Donald Quinlan 72460,2354
To: Ron White 76376,500 (X)

Thanks.  Do you have any idea of what is going on? So far, the only two
programs I've attempted to SETVER with were QEMM and Manifest.  Suggestions
appreciated.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11046 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  08:26:25
Sb: #10962-#SERVER err. message
Fm: Ron White 76376,500
To: Donald Quinlan 72460,2354 (X)

I have no idea what's happening. I'm hoping some of the Microsoft tech support
people will see our message and reply, but so far just silence.

Ron

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11092 S1/General
    08-Jul-91  13:42:49
Sb: #11046-SERVER err. message
Fm: Donald Quinlan 72460,2354
To: Ron White 76376,500

Thanks.  If you should get some information, would you send it on.

#: 10164 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  07:28:35
Sb: #10068-#SERVER err. message
Fm: Dennis Williamson 73260,350
To: Ron White 76376,500 (X)

Does your PATH point to the directory where SETVER.EXE resides?  Do you have
more than one copy of SETVER.EXE in your PATH?  Were you executing SETVER with
an explicit path (i.e. drive:\path\setver...)?

SETVER writes its version table into the SETVER.EXE file on disk (which I think
is bad programming), which can cause a variety of problems.

Dennis



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10170 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  07:53:43
Sb: #10164-SERVER err. message
Fm: Ron White 76376,500
To: Dennis Williamson 73260,350 (X)

Dennis,

Yes, my path explicit points to the directory where SETVER.EXE is, and I only
have one copy of SERVER.EXE. I tried executing SETVER with both an explicit
path and by changing first to the directory in which it's in. The whole thing
just doesn't make any sense.

Ron



#: 10069 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  16:15:15
Sb: #Win/DOS/EMS inconsistent
Fm: Steve Ramsey 76050,411
To: All

Can anyone explain two apparently inconsistent quotes from the DOS 5 manual.

On page 290 it says:

       If you use Microsoft Windows vesion 3.0 or later, use EMM386 as an
       expanded-memory emulator only if you run programs that need expanded
       memory outside Microsoft Windows.  When running in 386 enhanced mode,
       Windows can simulate expanded memory for programs that need it.

On page 319 it says:

       Microsoft Windows will not be able to allocate expanded memory to
       programs that need it if you specify the noems switch.  If you use
       such programs, use the ram switch instead of the noems switch.

I take the first passage to say that Windows will create EMS when a program
needs it.  The second one says that it won't.  I have found the second to be
true.

Am I missing something here?

       Steve



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10181 S1/General
    05-Jul-91  08:16:11
Sb: #10069-#Win/DOS/EMS inconsistent
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Steve Ramsey 76050,411 (X)

The first paragraph says that if you say nothing, Windows will create expanded
memory.

The second paragraph says that if you say "Do not create expanded memory",
Windows will obey your command.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10774 S1/General
    06-Jul-91  22:16:00
Sb: #10181-#Win/DOS/EMS inconsistent
Fm: Reinhold J. Gerharz 70662,2262
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

I fail to see how your curt reply answers Steve's question. The "noems"  switch
tells EMM386 not to create simulated expanded memory,  and is therefore
included on the "device=..." statement that loads EMM386. It does NOT also tell
Windows to "obey" a command not intended it!

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10866 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  09:26:37
Sb: #10774-Win/DOS/EMS inconsistent
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Reinhold J. Gerharz 70662,2262 (X)

I didn't intend to answer Steve or anyone else in a curt way.  I'm sorry it
appeared that way.

Yesterday, in a house-cleaning fit, I deleted all of the old messages on my
system.  I now have neither the original message nor my reply.  To recover
these messages, I would have to reset my message counter.  I will do that and
go back and reread what Steve (or whoever) and I said, but it would be helpful
to know the number of Steve's message.  Can you tell me that?

As I recall, someone (you say Steve someone) sent a message with two quotes
from the User's Guide.  One talked about the NOEMS switch and EMM386; the other
talked about an effect of the NOEMS switch on Windows.  The message writer
characterized the two quotations as contradictory.

As I read the two paragraphs, they were/are not contradictory.  One said
nothing about Windows, whereas the other talked about Windows.  My reply tried
to state how I saw the difference between these two quotes.

Your message creates a mystery for me.  Most of your message speaks of the
effect of NOEMS on EMM386, and I do not disagree with anything you say about
that, so I do not see why you think that you are correcting me.  Your message
does not seem to say anything about the second of the two quotations, the one
that referred to Windows.  The tone of your message suggests that you agree
with Steve that the two quotations contradict each other.  In what way do they
do that?  Evidently, you (and Steve) read the second quotation as saying
something different than I do.



#: 10938 S1/General
    07-Jul-91  16:35:30
Sb: #10069-Win/DOS/EMS inconsistent
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Steve Ramsey 76050,411

Reinhold Gerharz has taken me to task for giving you a "curt" answer.  I have
exhumed your original message and my reply and taken another look.

I think the paragraph on page 290 is one of those statements that can be read
at least two ways.  What I believe the author(s) intended was what I said in my
previous message: Because Windows simulates expanded memory, if you do
everything within the Windows environment, you do not have to load EMM386
merely to provide expanded memory.  That is, you can omit the line
device=EMM386.EXE from your config.sys.

On rereading the whole bit, I now see that you were probably assuming that
someone would load EMM386 anyway, in order to manage UMBs.  So for you, the
issue was whether EMM386.EXE was modified by RAM or by NOEMS.  I think the
author of the paragraph on page 290 never considered this issue.  He/she was
writing about what one would do if one was debating whether to load EMM386
SOLELY to provide expanded memory.

According to page 608, "You must use either the ram or noems switch to provide
access to the upper memory area."  This seems to say that if you load EMM386 in
order to plop things into UMB, you have to specify either RAM or NOEMS.  In
that context, the paragraph on page 319 says to me that if you load EMM386,
Windows takes note parameter you used (RAM or NOEMS) and Windows does what you
told EMM386 to do.

Frankly, the paragraph on page 319 stuck me as strange.  Windows supposedly
converts ALL free memory into expanded memory, then reallocates some to XMS if
a program wants that.  Thus, p. 319 seems to say Windows converts all memory to
a form that it may refuse to use.  However, you said you had verified the
accuracy of the statement on p. 319 and I believed you.




#: 10070 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  16:15:57
Sb: #mouse driver for 5.0
Fm: Bill Lynott 70007,420
To: all

When I try to use my microsoft bus mouse with DOS 5.0 I get a message that my
mouse driver must be updated. Is there a downloadable mouse driver around for
use with DOS 5.0?

--Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10584 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:03:27
Sb: #10070-#mouse driver for 5.0
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Bill Lynott 70007,420 (X)

No, but depending on the version you can get a free update by calling
1-800-426-9400...........




Devlin Spearman Microsoft




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10619 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  06:26:35
Sb: #10584-mouse driver for 5.0
Fm: Bill Lynott 70007,420
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Thanks, Devlin.  I'll give them a call

--Bill

#: 10071 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  16:24:08
Sb: #DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Joe McGinn 71510,3015
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202 (X)

I am experiencing random crashes when I put the DOS=HIGH command in my
config.sys (I'm using QEMM386 v5.11 as memory mgr).  I tried using
"DOS=HIGH,UMB", and that clears up the bugs, but this is incompatable with the
QEMM loadhi programs and I actually end up with less available memory than
before.  Is there any way to safely use the DOS=HIGH command with QEMM & its'
loadhi program?

Joe McGinn Impact Research Group, Ltd.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10118 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  21:52:06
Sb: #10071-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Dennis Allen 74035,1073
To: Joe McGinn 71510,3015 (X)

If using QEMM386, don't use Micrsoft's LOADHIGH, DEVICEHIGH, or UMB.  Use
DOS=HIGH.  I suggest calling QEMM technical support to make sure QEMM386 is
configured correctly.  While your at it, upgrade to QEMM386.SYS v5.13...Dennis



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10199 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  09:11:15
Sb: #10118-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Joe McGinn 71510,3015
To: Dennis Allen 74035,1073 (X)

Dennis,
    Good advice, DOS=HIGH is all I really need, but it doesn't seem to work
with QEMM v5.11.  I think I will try v5.13, because no one seems to know for
sure whether 5.11 works with DOS 5.  I'll get back to you if this solves my
problem.  Thanks,

Joe McGinn Impact Research Group, Ltd.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10208 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  09:50:35
Sb: #10199-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Mike Singleton 72550,1415
To: Joe McGinn 71510,3015 (X)

Joe....

Qemm 5.11 works just fine with DOS5.  For that matter, it was the only way I
was able to get DOS5 to work with my configuration.  Haven't tried 5.13 yet and
probably won't until there is a reason to.

Mike




There are 2 Replies.

#: 10326 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  13:24:45
Sb: #10208-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Ralph S. Thomas 76437,604
To: Mike Singleton 72550,1415 (X)

How did you do it, Mike?  Would you mind posting or mailing your sample
AUTOEXEC.BAT & CONFIG.SYS?  I'd appreciate it -- I can't get my system to work
right with QEMM & DOS 5.0  Thanx!  Ralph

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10364 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:52:54
Sb: #10326-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Mike Singleton 72550,1415
To: Ralph S. Thomas 76437,604

Ralph...

Here they are:
files=32
buffers=30
stacks=0,0
device=c:\qemm2\qemm386.sys ram rom nosh nt x=a000-c7ff
device=c:\qemm2\loadhi.sys /r:1 c:\hyper386.exe s xt:- c:2048:2048
dos=high
device=c:\dos\setver.sys
device=c:\qemm2\loadhi.sys /r:1 c:\tvgabio.sys
device=c:\qemm2\loadhi.sys /r:2 c:\tansi.sys
Lastdrive=E
shell=c:\dos\command.com c:\dos /e:256 /p

@ECHO off
SET COMSPEC=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM
VERIFY OFF
PATH=C:\dos;c:\pwplus;D:\windows;d:\norton;d:\;c:\;
PATH=d:\MOUSE2;%PATH%;
c:\qemm2\loadhi /r:1 d:\mouse2\MOUSE SER 2
c:\qemm2\loadhi /r:2 c:\dos\doskey.com
PROMPT $P$G
C:\QEMM2\LOADHI /R:1 C:\DOS\Mode LPT1,,P
VER
set Temp=d:\windows\temp
@ Echo off
goto end

Mike


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10465 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  23:10:52
Sb: #10364-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Dennis Allen 74035,1073
To: Mike Singleton 72550,1415 (X)

You can LOADHI your SETVER.  And some programs, like Procomm Plus 2.0, don't
like QEMM's ROM option...Dennis


There is 1 Reply.

#: 10617 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  06:26:32
Sb: #10465-DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Mike Singleton 72550,1415
To: Dennis Allen 74035,1073 (X)

Dennis...

Thanks for pointing out the setver option to me.  I changed config.sys files so
often over the last month that somewhere along the way I must have forgotten to
load that one high.

However, I've never had any problems with the ROM option.  Not even with
Procomm.

Mike




#: 11061 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  09:41:10
Sb: #10208-DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Joe McGinn 71510,3015
To: Mike Singleton 72550,1415

Mike,
    Thanks.  Apparantly there is a bug in QEMM386 v5.11 (and 5.10, 5.12) that
you may or may not experience depending on your application software (it has to
do with calling an EMS 4.0 function and moving a memory block of zero-length).
The fix is available in the PCVENB forum, Lib 1, file FUNC24.PAT.

Joe

#: 10434 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  19:55:56
Sb: #10199-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Max Barret 72331,154
To: Joe McGinn 71510,3015 (X)

Joe,

Both QEMM 5.11 and QEMM 5.13 work well with DOS 5.0 and DOS=HIGH, at least on
Compaqs. The different QEMM versions relate primarily to different releases of
Windows.

   Max



There are 2 Replies.

#: 10467 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  23:12:12
Sb: #10434-DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Dennis Allen 74035,1073
To: Max Barret 72331,154 (X)

He probably doesn't have the right QEMM.SYS switches set for his machine and
configuration...Dennis


#: 11064 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  09:44:27
Sb: #10434-DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Joe McGinn 71510,3015
To: Max Barret 72331,154

Max,
     Thanks, I have upgraded to QEMM v5.13 (with the file FUNC24.PAT from Lib 1
of PCVENB) and this has cleared up my problems.

Joe

#: 10361 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  15:36:34
Sb: #10071-#DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Bob Turner 72261,1120
To: Joe McGinn 71510,3015 (X)

Im using QEMM ver 5.12.  DOS=HIGH, and Qemm's Loadhi with DESQview with no
problems.  Perhaps you should upgrade to QEMM 5.12.  I have a generic 386sx
motherboard, AMI BIOS dated 2/25/89, Neat Chipset with 2mb ram.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11063 S4/Compatibility
    08-Jul-91  09:42:56
Sb: #10361-DOS=HIGH/QEMM
Fm: Joe McGinn 71510,3015
To: Bob Turner 72261,1120

Bob,
    Thanks, I have upgraded to 5.13 and that has cleared up my problems. (The
upgrade is available in forum PCVENB, Lib 1, file FUNC24.PAT). Joe

#: 10072 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  16:40:16
Sb: #Loading DOS HIGH
Fm: Bruce Erenkrantz 70304,3121
To: [F] Nate Boxer (SL) 76711,202 (X)

I have a Hyundai 286C with a VGA monitor, 2 floppies, and a hard drive.  I
installed 5.0 smoothly with one exception.  I can't get DOS to load high. I've
tried several combinations of statements in my CONFIG.SYS.  The simplest one
didn't work either.  This is it:
     DEVICE=C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
     DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
     DOS=HIGH

I get the following message:
     "Installed A20 handler number 1.
      ERROR: No available extended memory was found.
      XMS Driver not installed.
      HMA not available : Loading DOS low"

I thought that all 286's had "extended memory" and now that 5.0 was out I would
be able to take advantage of it.  Am I doing something wrong? Is it my machine?
Is it DOS (HIMEM.SYS)? Any and all help would be appreciated.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10183 S2/Setup & Install
    05-Jul-91  08:16:28
Sb: #10072-Loading DOS HIGH
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Bruce Erenkrantz 70304,3121 (X)

Some 80286 machines have only 640 KB of memory or even less.  Some have 1 Meg
of memory.  Neither of these can load DOS into HMA because HMA lies above 1
Meg.




#: 10572 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:43
Sb: #10072-Loading DOS HIGH
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Bruce Erenkrantz 70304,3121 (X)

Use the mem command to see if you have any available extended memory.  If you
do, then use one of the machine switches on your himem line(see page 611 of the
user manual for more details.  Let us know if you have any problems using it.
If you have no extended memory which is possible on a 286, then get more memory
to take advantage of the memory-savvy features of dos5.....




Dev



#: 10075 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  16:48:55
Sb: #new mouse driver
Fm: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

My mouse driver is not current enough for DOS 5.  Is there a Microsoft mouse
driver available online?



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10184 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  08:16:38
Sb: #10075-#new mouse driver
Fm: Bill Starbuck 70042,344
To: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045 (X)

Call 1-800-426-9400 and order an update from MS Customer Service.  If you have
bought DOS 5 and DOS 5's setup program give you a warning about you mouse, you
can have the new software for free.

There seems to be a way to download the new mouse software by calling
long-distance to Canada, but that would incur the cost of a 40 minute
long-distance call (@ 2400 bps).  It's cheaper to order the free update.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10704 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  15:17:50
Sb: #10184-new mouse driver
Fm: Susan Vazquez 70611,3045
To: Bill Starbuck 70042,344 (X)

Thanks, I'll call tomorrow.



#: 10076 S6/Command Usage
    04-Jul-91  16:58:32
Sb: Append Configuration
Fm: Diane Byrd 70632,2440
To:  76701,157 (X)

I would appreciate any help you could give me understanding (or fixing?) the
"append" statement in my Autoexec. I have 2--one was installed with the system
and one showed up w/ Dos 5.0.  #1 reads: C:\dos\append /e... (I have a
lastdrive E line)...#2 reads: C:\dos\append c:\dos.  Can I combine this into a
one line statement and still accomplish the same thing? Append takes up 8.8K
conventional.  Can this be loaded high?  Don't mean to be such a Dos Dimwit.  I
did try to remove the "lastdrv E" and the 1st append statement.  I couldn't get
a c:> from Windows so I put both back in Thanks for your advice and patience.

#: 10078 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  17:29:56
Sb: DOS 5 & Windows
Fm: Andrew Simpkins 73217,3442
To: Todd Martin 76701,157 (X)

Todd:

I've seen a few messages in various forums that say or imply that if you
re-partition your drive to take advantage of 5's big ones, you should
re-install Windows.  I hope very much that this is not true.  I went from
3.3, where I installed Windows, to 5.0, and have done extensive customizing.
I do *not* want re-install Windows, but I *do* want to re-partition my
drive. If re-installing is recommended, I hope instead that there is a file
somewhere that can tell me what changes need to be made to my Windows .INI
files.

TIA

                             -Andrew-


#: 10079 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  17:30:03
Sb: QBASIC Documentation
Fm: Martin Morrison 70315,101
To: All

Will there be documentation of the BASIC language as implemented under QBASIC?

#: 10083 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  17:47:32
Sb: #DOS 5 Problems
Fm: Bob Freeman 76214,2324
To: [F] C. Devlin Spearman ( 76711,200 (X)

Just loaded DOS 5.0 onto an HP Vectra (80286) and while I like the extra
memory, it seems to have some unusual problems.

When trying to delete a file, the delete option lists 3 different files
although only one was selected.  Even after re-booting and going straight to
delete, the same "extra" files are listed.  I also tried to copy a single file
and the 3 extra files are listed. After copying these files (which seemed safer
than deleting), the three files AND two other files were then copied into the
subdirectory.

Another problem (feature?)...when unzipping files, the new files created are
not shown in the directory listing.  Com'on, you guys(& gals) should be able to
know when hard disc files are deleted/added/renamed and do a selective scan
without have the user request it (via f5)

The fact that the program re-scans the hard disc every time the computer is
started is another hindrance.  Would it have been such a big deal to keep a
data file of current files, modified when changes are made?

This DOS shell does not seem significantly better than the 4.01 shell....I am
not impressed!

Fortunately, I decided to test it on the oldest machine rather than buy 3 more
copies for the rest of the hardware.  Now where did I put the DOS 3.3 disc for
this machine?  (the uninstall does not work, probably my fault for trying to
make room on my disc for 5.0 and deleting some important file).

<Flame off>

I guess the big question is how do I remove the DOS Shell since I selected it
as the start-up program?

Thanks, Bob

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10392 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  16:30:00
Sb: #10083-#DOS 5 Problems
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Bob Freeman 76214,2324 (X)

To remove the dosshell from the startup, simply edit your AUTOEXEC.BAT and
delete the last line of the file (which has DOSSHELL on it).

Before you do that, a couple of things you should know:

1)     The behavior you're describing is not normal. I've used
       dosshell on HP vectra (and we've done substantial testing
       on them) without this problem.  There is something very
       specific about your configuration which is causing this.
       Do you have any TSR's loaded?

2)     While DOSSHELL does read your hard disk each time it loads,
       you don't have to wait for it to finish reading the disk
       before you start a program.  To illustrate, try pressing
       the TAB key while it is reading the disk.  Move the cursor
       down to the "COMMAND PROMPT" choice and press enter.  It
       will stop reading and immediately start the command prompt.

3)     If you're not using a disk cache (such as SMARTDRV),
       check your DOS documentation on how to load it.  SMARTDRV
       will greatly reduce the amount of time it takes for DOSSHELL
       to read your disk

Eric (Microsoft)
       to load it.  I



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10399 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  16:51:06
Sb: #10392-DOS 5 Problems
Fm: Bob Freeman 76214,2324
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

Eric,
        After sending the message, I took a good look at the Autoexec and saw
the Dosshell line, I'll remove it.
        It seems that setting the switch the look across directories allows
this strange thing to happen.  I've turned it off and it's ok now.  Why it
happens I'll never know.
Fortunately, I can remove the shell and use Norton Commander as I normally do.
I only looked at the shell to see if it was any better than the 4.01 shell, it
is, but I still have no use for it.
Thanks,  Bob

#: 10585 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:03:39
Sb: #10083-#DOS 5 Problems
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Bob Freeman 76214,2324 (X)

Elementary, my dear Bob.  If you remove it from the autoexec.bat file you will
find that it will not execute automatically.  Were you doing it out of Win3?
Unfortunately the shell is working out of conventional memory only. It does not
have the memory excess to constantly scan.  Selective scan implies choice which
means user-initiated.  I am not sure what you're trying to get at it here.
When it re -scans the hard drive, that IS what is what it is doing, making a
data file.  Again no spare memory on this puppy. It is DESIGNED to run with the
minimum of resources.   I think most people here will disagree with you about
the shell.  It is definitely an improvement over the dos4 shell.  I would
suggest that you look into win3 if you are looking for that type of power from
a microsoft product.....



Dev







There is 1 Reply.

#: 10700 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  15:15:52
Sb: #10585-DOS 5 Problems
Fm: Jon Wenger [HCC] 70540,504
To: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200 (X)

Dev, FYI I also think the new shell sucks and am planning to try using the old
one for my 300+ users.  Aesthetically the old shell is MUCH better.  We use it
only for a menu system.  Having the default come up with the old file-system is
VERY confusing for novices, the layout is not very appealing on a mono monitor.
The file selection with SH-F8 is cumbersome, what ever happened to spacebar,
etc. etc. etc.



#: 10084 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  18:07:33
Sb: #ProComm+ Compatibility
Fm: Colin Gilyeat 72730,314
To: Nate Boxer 76711,202 (X)

Nate I've been using procomm+ primarily without a mouse, although it is
installed for mouse usage.  As to whether it works without a config.sys or
autoexec.bat, I don't know, haven't tried that, but I will and will let you
know what happens.  I'll also upload my autoexec.bat and config.sys files along
with a mem/c printout. On another subject, have you heard of any problems with
PCTools V6 desktop not working with MSDOS5.0.  When a attempt to start the
desktop, my system locks up? Any thoughts? thanks Colin

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10379 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  16:27:23
Sb: #10084-#ProComm+ Compatibility
Fm: Eric Straub 76264,3406
To: Colin Gilyeat 72730,314

I believe you need to use LOADFIX to load PC Tools 6 if you have more than 576K
free before starting the program.

Eric.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10965 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  19:00:56
Sb: #10379-ProComm+ Compatibility
Fm: Cary Raffle 76477,2125
To: Eric Straub 76264,3406

I'm using PCTools v6.0 right now, no problems with Desktop and DOS5.0.  Are you
using PC-Cache? That tends to have conflict problems, so you may want to
replace it with Smartdrive if you're using it.

#: 10085 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  18:28:21
Sb: #LOGIMENU Part 27
Fm: Bob Throckmorton 76030,606
To: C. Devlin Spearrman 76711,200 (X)

The problem I am experiencing is not with Logitech 5.01, but actually with
LOGIMENU, the menu generator and driver.

I have been running my Logitech mice on a number of configurations for some
time under DOS 4.01.  I also ran the DOSSHELL, and never experienced any
problems.  When I upgraded to DOS 5.0, I ran into problems almost immediately
when I ran any of the programs for which I use LOGIMENU.

I have experimented using MOUSE.SYS and MOUSE.COM.  I have loaded them high and
low.  I have stripped my CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to the bare minimum.  The
failure is the same on ALL of my hardware configurations, including desktop,
laptop, and portable.

Essentially what happens is when I call a program that uses a LOGIMENU menu,
LOGIMENU executes but insists that the mouse driver is not in memory.  Thus is
aborts and does not load the mouse driver.  This occurs only under two
circumstances:  (1) When I call a program from the DOSSHELL, or (2) when I call
a program after having used the DOSSHELL (although the latter instance is only
sporadic).  All non-Logimenu mouse-oriented programs operate fine.  The mouse
driver IS loaded and functioning, but LOGIMENU can't find it.  It's looking for
information somewhere that DOSSHELL has somehow overwritten, hidden, or moved.

The only means I have found to avoid the problem thus far is to simply avoid
the DOSSHELL.  This is unfortunate, as I have set it up so that my daughter can
run the computer without getting into Windows, which is a little tough for her
yet.

One of the sysops, Jennifer Kilmer, confirmed that there was a problem, but I
have yet to hear anything from her yet.  Logitech has also not responded to my
inquiries.

DOS 5.0 looks like a real winner.  But Logitech's LOGIMENU or MSDOS' DOSSHELL
is a loser.  Maybe I should try running the old DOSSHELL under DOS 5.0.  At
least there's SOMETHING I haven't tried yet.

I'm willing to listen to any new ideas, but what I really need is for Microsoft
or Logitech to stand up and suggest a fix.

Thanks for asking!

- Bob

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10586 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:03:46
Sb: #10085-LOGIMENU Part 27
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Bob Throckmorton 76030,606

okay Bob. First, Jennifer no longer works CIS.  She is off for projects
unknown.  Have you tried using loadfix?  Maybe Logimenu expects to at least
60+k worth of dos in the pit of conventional memory.  I believe that the
dosshell is a winner, and I think that most people here would agree.  Does
anyone else out there have a Logitech mouse that can help Bob out with
LOGIMENU?




Dev



#: 10909 S7/DOS Shell
    07-Jul-91  13:38:39
Sb: #10085-LOGIMENU Part 27
Fm: Craig Massey 70431,36
To: Bob Throckmorton 76030,606

Bob:

I am running Dosshell, Windows, all of my many DOS programs, etc. with the
Logitech Trackman under DOS 5.0 without any problems. Although I downloaded the
5.0 upgrade of the .com and .exe files as recommended by Logitech, I decided
not to use them but to try and stick with my version 4.10. I did this because I
have created so many custom mouse menus that I wasn't willing to just ditch
them. With the exception of getting a message only the first time I ran the
Dosshell saying the mouse was incompatible, I have never had another hitch and
all my "individual" menus work perfectly.

My config.sys is pretty straight forward and I load the mouse through the
autoexec.bat as the last lines in the batch: cd\mouse
                                             mouse
                                             logimenu /20
                                             click
                                             cd\ The logimenu /20 is
specifically to have enough there to run a menu for WordPerfect.

Hope this helps. In the meantime, I don't plan on the full Logitech upgrade til
I DON'T see messages here about all of the compatibility problems <smile>.

Craig



#: 10086 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  18:29:20
Sb: #Procomm+ and MSDOS 5.0
Fm: Colin Gilyeat 72730,314
To: Nate Boxer

Nate: Ran procomm+ without a config.sys and autoexec.bat and didn't appear to
have any problems using it without the mouse.  Here are my config.sys and
autoexec.bat files.  I'm using a Packard-Bell 386SX with 1Meg memory, 5-1/2,
3-1/2 floppies, 124MB hard drive partitioned into drives C,D,E and F.  My modem
is also a Packard-Bell 2400 baud external connected to COMM1.  COMM2 is my
mouse, a Logitech 3-button. Hopes this helps.

CONFIG.SYS:

DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS DOS=HIGH, UMB device=c:\dos\emm386.exe noems devicehigh
= c:\dos\ansi.sys BUFFERS=30 DEVICEHIGH = C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE devicehigh =
c:\dos\smartdrv.sys 256 FILES=30 BREAK=ON LASTDRIVE=F SHELL=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM
/E:384 /p stacks = 0,0

@ECHO OFF SET COMSPEC=C:\DOS\COMMAND.COM PATH
C:;C:\DOS;C:\WINDOWS;c:\mouse;c:\util;c:\util\pkzip;c:\norton;
     C:\UTIL\PCTOOLS6; LOADHIGH C:\DOS\FASTOPEN.EXE C:=125 loadhigh
C:\DOS\APPEND C:\DOS loadhigh C:\MOUSE\MOUSE501 SER 2 loadhigh doskey loadhigh
numloc set TEMP=C:\WINDOWS\TEMP VER PROMPT $P$G DOSSHELL

Here is the ouput from the MEM/C command:

Conventional Memory :

  Name                Size in Decimal       Size in Hex -------------
---------------------   -------------
  MSDOS              12784      ( 12.5K)       31F0
  HIMEM               1184      (  1.2K)        4A0
  EMM386              9424      (  9.2K)       24D0
  COMMAND             2752      (  2.7K)        AC0
  FREE                  64      (  0.1K)         40
  FREE              6289yLxp#y0!hE'3I[M6(4LP 998E0

Total  FP(O~?v:       629024      (614.3K)

Upper Memory :

  Name                Size in Decimal       Size in Hex -------------
---------------------   -------------
  SYSTEM            163840      (160.0K)      28000
  ANSI                4192      (  4.1K)       1060
  SETVER               400      (  0.4K)        190
  SMARTDRV           13104      ( 12.8K)       3330
  MOUSE501           13888      ( 13.6K)       3640
  FASTOPEN            9200      (  9.0K)       23F0
  APPEND              9024      (  8.8K)       2340
  DOSKEY              4128      (  4.0K)       1020
 A(
XE

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10573 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:50
Sb: #10086-Procomm+ and MSDOS 5.0
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Colin Gilyeat 72730,314

-reduce the buffers size to 15 -make stacks=9,128 -delete fastopen line

These will help optimize your system a little bit.  If  you are having a
performance problem, let me know......





Dev




#: 10087 S2/Setup & Install
    04-Jul-91  18:37:31
Sb: #MS-DOS 5.0
Fm: Richard Salts 71570,2420
To: All

Hello, all,

I just received and installed in my PC last week a copy of MS-DOS 5.0 and so
far it is functioning well.  I have a few questions, though.

I received an error message when I first tried to install MS-DOS 5.0 to the
effect that I had a device driver (or hard disk) on my system that was
incompatible (presumably) with MS-DOS 5.0.  I was referred to and read the
"Readme.txt" which I did and the last instruction was the one I followed which
read: "Type the following: setup /u"

I did and 5.0 is on my machine and so far seems to be doing fine. My question
is: What does the /u mean on that setup instruction? I can't find any reference
to it in the Microsoft manual as to what it is.

I have 5.0 setup so that the DOSSHELL is present at startup.  When I am
returning to DOSSHELL from having used an application, I am stopped in
mid-return to always see the message, "Press any key to return to MS-DOS
Shell".  I always have to do one more key pressing (than I think I should have
to) to be able to return to the DOSSHELL.

Question:  Is there any way of getting rid of that pesky little message that
stops me in mid-return from an application back to DOSSHELL so I can go from
application STRAIGHT back to DOSSHELL WITHOUT any senseless interruption?

Thanks,

Rich



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10574 S2/Setup & Install
    06-Jul-91  02:01:58
Sb: #10087-MS-DOS 5.0
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Richard Salts 71570,2420

I am afraid that the pesky message is there to stay....

The /u switch tells setup to ignore the non-dos partitions that it finds and
continue to install.....



Dev



#: 10088 S8/BASIC Conversions
    04-Jul-91  18:44:15
Sb: #Qbasic vs. QuickBasic
Fm: David D. Salmon 71160,2112
To: All

What differences are there between the DOS 5 Qbasic program and QuickBasic?
Does the DOS 5 version have any advantages or improvements on QuickBasic?

David



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10126 S8/BASIC Conversions
    04-Jul-91  22:41:48
Sb: #10088-Qbasic vs. QuickBasic
Fm: Greg Wolking 71630,20
To: David D. Salmon 71160,2112 (X)

David,

   QuickBASIC (QBX) is an interpreter/compiler/debugger, and is far more
powerful than QBasic. The environments (i.e. editor and syntax checking) are
almost identical, and moving up to QBX from QBasic would be very easy. QBX can
create .EXE files, QBasic cannot. QBX can create programs consisting of
multiple modules (even modules written in other languages such as C or Pascal)
and create libraries (.LIB files) of favorite functions that you can use in
other programs; QBasic cannot. QBX's debugging capabilities are much more
advanced as well. Advantages of QBasic over QBX? Well, QBasic is simpler (i.e.
less feature-loaded) and therefore less daunting to the novice BASIC
programmer, but that's about it.

   The real advantage of QBX is the ability to compile your programs into
stand-alone .EXE form so that you don't have to load an interpreter every time
you want to run them, just fire 'em up right from the DOS prompt. If you like
QBasic, you will love QBX, and at under $100, it's a great buy for the ability
to create your own stand-alone programs that you could then sell to others
without having to pay royalties to MicroSoft(!) As with any language compiler,
it will take some time and study to be able to take full advantage of QBX's
capabilities, but it's well worth the investment. I know that all this sounds
like a plug, but I must give credit where credit is due -- I LIKE compiled
BASIC, and QBX is a great tool for learning it!

   Greg.



#: 10089 S1/General
    04-Jul-91  18:49:13
Sb: Cyrillic Windows 3.0?
Fm: Wolodymyr Barabash 74066,3654
To: [F] Todd Martin (SL) 76701,157 (X)

Where can I purchase Cyrillic versions of DOS or Windows if it exists...
Regards, Wolly


#: 10095 S7/DOS Shell
    04-Jul-91  19:19:14
Sb: #DOS 5.0 Shell Security
Fm: Jack 72336,3610
To: Jack

Dosshell 5.0 --- SECURITY!!!! Where is the doc on customizing and securing
access to the various sections of the NEW shell?  At least w/4.0x I could
lockout features!  Any help out there?

There are 2 Replies.

#: 10456 S7/DOS Shell
    05-Jul-91  21:57:19
Sb: #10095-DOS 5.0 Shell Security
Fm: jr grant 73507,1703
To: Jack 72336,3610

Jack, This seems to be a touchy subject.  I have uploaded two messages
regarding the same subject, and they have both disappeared.  I`m sure this will
will too. John

#: 10587 S7/DOS Shell
    06-Jul-91  02:03:55
Sb: #10095-DOS 5.0 Shell Security
Fm: Devlin Spearman(SL) 76711,200
To: Jack 72336,3610

You will have to turn to a thrid party utility.  Dos5 does not include se'
(SqR8Euures.....




Dev



#: 10101 S4/Compatibility
    04-Jul-91  19:44:34
Sb: #1Dirplus & DOS 5.0???
Fm: Neil R. Ross 71230,3576
To: All

Does anyone know if DOS 5.0 is compatible with manager/menuing program of
1Dirplus from Bourbaki???

Thanks, Neil

There are 3 Replies.

#: 10156 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  06:28:14
Sb: #10101-#1Dirplus & DOS 5.0???
Fm: Jim Wright 73200,2664
To: Neil R. Ross 71230,3576 (X)

Neil: I'm using 1DirPlus v3.51B and it works swimmingly. I don't know about
earlier versions but I suspect no problems; Bourbaki does a crackerjack job of
not taking advantage of undocumented "Did you know that if . . ." shortcuts in
DOS. Give it a try. Jim Wright



There is 1 Reply.

#: 10431 S4/Compatibility
    05-Jul-91  19:49:23
Sb: #10156-#1Dirplus & DOS 5.0???
Fm: Neil R. Ross 71230,3576
To: Jim Wright 73200,2664 (X)

Jim ... Are you sure about your version of 3.51B???  I have 3.50B and did not
know about any upgrades or fix disks.  BTW, mine does run okay under DOS 5.0.

I am hoping for an upgrade to incorporate DOS 5.0 enhancement.

Neil

There is 1 Reply.

#: 10701 S4/Compatibility
    06-Jul-91  15:17:32
Sb: #10431-#1Dirplus & DOS 5.0???
Fm: Jim Wright 73200,2664
To: Neil R. Ross 71230,3576 (X)

Neil: 3.51B is correct. Assuming you're a bonefide owner of 1DirPlus, you can
get minor enhancements to 1DirPlus by calling their BBS. See Page 4 of Version
3 Manual 1.  Their BBS upgrades are minor normally just to fix problems with
unique configurations.  FYI, you can get a PIF and a Special 1Dir_win.exe file
that makes 1DirPlus "do Windows" off the BBS. It still runs as a "DOS
Application", but I load= it in Win.ini and Ctrl-Esc to it when I need it.
Fooey on file manager and PCTools 7.0 on WIN! Who needs em? I can do a quick
non-multiprocessing run of a program by starting it on a 1DirPlus Menu.
1DirPLus is the BEST menu/file management tool around even if Ziff-Davis
doesn't seem to know it exists. When I'm not windowing I run a plain vanilla
DOS and start every one of my executables off a 1DirPlus menu. It's works fine
with DOS 5.0, no upgrade needed. BTW, What's a DOS Prompt? <grin> Great piece
of software!  Jim Wright




There is 1 Reply.

#: 10869 S4/Compatibility
    07-Jul-91  09:^C
 (X)


Control-C Intercepted Menu

 1 Continue
 2 Return to menu/prompt
 3 Return to forum top
 4 Exit this forum
 5 Log off

Enter choice: