Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/27/17:54:14
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > As I said above, 4DOS consumes very little resident memory. It uses
> > only 416 *BYTES* of conventional when loaded high, unlike command.com
> > which uses close to 4k.
>
> I have COMMAND.COM installed HIGH using 96 bytes of conventional memory.
> I don't want to say, of course, that 400 bytes is a reason not to use
> 4DOS. And I certainly don't want to start a shell war here. I'm just
> stating facts as they are; let others judge them.
Sure. I don't want to start a shell war either. I just want to say
that 4DOS does EVERYTHING that COMMAND.COM does PLUS it does MANY
other things that are usually only found in UNIX shells. It doesn't
have any negative side effects that I know of either. I've been using
it for more than 2 years and think that programming without it would
be a real step backwards. All I've meant to say really is that I
think every DOS programmer should TRY OUT 4DOS and decide for
themselves wether or not they want it. I'm sure that they will fall
in love. (P.S. If anyone has Norton Utilities 6 or above, they can
try out NDOS which is 4DOS 4.x licensed to Symantec. Then if you like
it, you can download the latest 4DOS and enjoy!).
I'm interested in hearing other's opinions on 4DOS. Either good or
bad. Actually, I've never heard any bad opinions so if someone has
had a negative experience with 4DOS, I'd like to know what it was.
Thanks, TTYL
Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant http://www3.sympatico.ca/mharris
My dynamic address: http://www3.sympatico.ca/mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT sympatico DOT ca mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Want a Windows emulator for Linux? Visit Caldera's website: www.caldera.com
- Raw text -