Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:35:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Mike A. Harris" Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" To: Eli Zaretskii cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: About redirection... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Your mom. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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