Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:19:27 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT sympatico DOT ca>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: About redirection...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970122223659.1130A-100000@capslock.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970123161321.562I-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Mike A. Harris wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > You don't need 600k compressed package to get file completion.  For an 
> 
> 4DOS *ISNT* a 600k compressed file completion package.  It does MUCH
> more than that.  It is a compete overhaul of COMMAND.COM.  It includes

That was precisely my point.  File completion alone doesn't need that 
much.

> 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.