From: RiverWind 

Hi there,

I sincerely appreciate your input here; you had a lot of valuable 
information to impart.

>From all that everyone has said, I can reliably infer that wheras DRDOS 
has its advantages, there is really no version of dos that is going to 
necessarily shine forth above all other versions.  One will perforce take 
the shortcomings along with the advantages, regardless of which os they 
choose.

Riv

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, daSilva, Joe wrote:

> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:03:12 +1100
> To: opendos{at}delorie.com
> From: "daSilva, Joe" 
> Subject: RE: Specific Technical Questions Concerning DRDOS
> 
> The key advantage of DR-DOS in achieving the maximum
> free conventional memory is the DPMS driver, which
> allows DPMS-aware drivers such as NWCDEX and NWCACHE
> (also, some builds of Netware, I believe) to load
> almost entirely into extended memory.
>
> With a bit of work, you can achieve over 100K extra
> free conventional memory compared to an equivalent
> MS-DOS configuration.
>
> DR-DOS also supports task switching and multi-tasking,
> although for me these weren't stable, unfortunately.
>
> However, the official releases of DR-DOS only support
> LBA and FAT32 using additional drivers, which totally
> negates the memory benefits of using DR-DOS. Udo's
> enhanced OpenDOS 7.01 provides native support of LBA
> and FAT32, so if you're interested in pursuing DR-DOS
> as your O/S, that's the way to go.
>
> As for W95, the original version (MS-DOS 7.0) did NOT
> support FAT32. I don't know if it supported LBA, but
> that point would be mute, anyway. It was W95A (MS-DOS
> 7.1) that introduced FAT32 support.
>
> Similarly for PC-DOS, version 7.0 and 2000 did not
> support FAT32 (nor I believe, LBA). Version 7.1, which
> doesn't seem to have been released as a stand-alone
> product, does support FAT32 and LBA.
>
> As for LFN support, the command processors of DR-DOS
> 7.02/7.02 (possibly also OpenDOS 7.01) will work with
> Henrik Haftmann's DOSLFN driver. However, Caldera never
> did implement this stuff properly, so deleting a file
> for example, can result in invalid LFN entries in the
> directory.
>
> MS-DOS 7.1's command processor also will work with
> Henrik Haftmann's DOSLFN driver. PC-DOS 7.1 however,
> won't (it probably supports LFN under Windoze but
> assumes there's no third-party LFN functionality
> avaliable, such as DOSLFN).
>
> Joe.
>
>>
>
> Joe daSilva
> Senior Electronic Engineer
> Landis+Gyr
> Phone: +61 2 9690 7309
> joe.dasilva{at}landisgyr.com
> http://www.landisgyr.com/
>
> Manage Energy Better
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RiverWind [mailto:riverwind{at}shellworld.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 3:54 AM
>> To: Open Dos Discussion Group
>> Subject: Specific Technical Questions Concerning DRDOS
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Well good people, I hate to impose upon you yet again. I have
>> downloaded a file called "drdos73.exe." I believe that when the
>> executable is run it will produce multiple installation disks for
>> DRDOS7.3.
>>
>> Now then, I am interested in how I would go about tweaking memory
>> in order to hopefully surpass conventional memory or perhaps use it
>> more advantageously. You see, MSDOS has its "memmaker"
and "emm386"
>> with which the machine's memory is maximized as much as possible.
>> Moreover, PCDOS put out by IBM has its "emm386" and also
>> "ramboost." Now ramboost is by far one of the best memory
>> management programs I've ever seen. However, it still seems
>> restricted to the confines of conventional memory. My question is
>> this. To what extent, if any, is DRDOS able to circumnavigate this
>> restriction? For that matter is such a thing even possible?
>>
>> Lastly, does DRDOS provide any sort of multi-tasking facility which
>> would allow one to run more than one DOS application at the same
>> time, like say through a shell feature? Does DRDOS support long
>> file names? Lastly, what kind of tutorial documentation does it
>> come with?
>>
>> Bright Blessings,
>> RiverWind
>>
>>
>
> PLEASE CONSIDER OUR ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL.
>
> This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be
legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized
representative of an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using,
copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any
attachments. Thank you.
>
>


--- Internet Rex 2.29