If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:42:19 -0400, David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "VanguardLH" David H. Lipman wrote: They couldn't all be in the root as there was a limit of 64 files in the root. Depends on the storage media which was never mentioned. For example, a 360KB 5.25" floppy has 7 sectors allocated to the FAT, sectors are 512 bytes in size, and each entry (file or directory) consumes 32 bytes in the FAT, so that floppy can hold 112 entries: 7 sectors * 512 bytes/sector / 32 bytes/entry = 112 entries Summary of maximum entry count for MS/PC-DOS (root folder only): 8" 250 KB floppy: 68 8" 500 KB floppy: 68 8" 1.2 MB floppy: 192 5.25" 180 KB floppy: 64 5.25" 360 KB floppy: 112 5.25" 1.2 MB floppy: 224 3.5" 720 KB floppy: 112 3.5" 1.44 MB floppy: 224 3.5" 2.88 MB floppy: 240 3.5" 1.68 MB DMF floppy: 16 (*) Hard disks FAT12/16/32: 512 (*) Microsoft apps were often distributed using these hence the need to invent CAB files to deliver a larger number of files. Not all media formats are listed above. Many more are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk but I wasn't going to waste time to check what were they max entry count in the root folder. For an alternate listing of "Root dir entries" on media size, read http://support.microsoft.com/kb/75131. If long filenames are supported then the max count goes down due to use of more bytes per entry in the FAT to store the alternate long name. MS-DOS 2.0 introduced directories that could hold a lot more files and [sub]directories: 4068 for FAT12, 64K for FAT16, 268,173,300 for FAT32 (using the default cluster sizes). That didn't alleviate the maximum entry count in the root folder. Are we having fun yet roaming down reminiscence lane? Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-) Groan! Can't say that I miss that aspect of things. Thanx for the data correction. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:37:29 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys. Because you didn't buy and install 4dos. It was an independent product. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:17:25 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote: On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:37:29 -0600, GreyCloud wrote: In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys. Because you didn't buy and install 4dos. It was an independent product. It was a *wonderful* product (although I can hardly remember the details of it, I remember liking it very much). But I do remember once writing a batch file of about 4000 lines! |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 6/2/2012 12:42 PM PT, David H. Lipman typed:
Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-) No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat, etc. -- "When you need a helpline for breakfast cereals, it's time to start thinking about tearing down civilization and giving the ants a go." --Chris King in a.s.r. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 6/2/2012 8:54 PM PT, Ant typed:
Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-) No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat, etc. Oh remember, DoubleSpace, Stacker, etc.? -- "An ant is a wise creature for itself, but it is a shrewd thing in an orchard or garden." --Francis Bacon /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 02/06/2012 10:50 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
It's possible they don't carry some newsgroups that other NNTP servers carry. Based on their primitive web site and that they are NOT a Usenet backbone provider (e.g., Highwinds), and because it looks like they only carry text-only newsgroups (which is a bit pricey at $30/yr), it's quite possible they don't carry some newsgroups. *.msdos may be some of those they don't carry. Some NNTP servers don't carry as many newsgroups as others (and some carry lots of garbage newsgroups). Have your newsreader refresh its list of newsgroups; i.e., have it re-read the list of groups from the NNTP server. Then search on "msdos". I'm using Albasani as my NNTP provider and they show 16 groups with *.msdos for a name. Eternal-September has the same newsgroups. There are few in Albasani that aren't on Eternal-September and visa versa but most are duplicated on all NNTP servers. Not to prolong this sideline discussion much further, the problem was not whether or not they carried the newsgroups, it's whether or not I even searched for one, because I was not aware of them. Yousuf Khan |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 02/06/2012 3:37 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys. The bios usually has to do with low-level system calls. I used to have the IBM reference books on those system calls, but never saw things like CD, COPY, REN, etc. in their book. I suppose I could fire up the old IBM I do have and try this myself. 4DOS was an alternate command.com, which you had to buy separately. The company behind it eventually sold the rights to it to Norton, which appropriately renamed it to NDOS. Exact same functionality as 4DOS, but different name. It basically was an improved command.com with many advanced features dedicated to making the user interface easier (history recall, sophisticated DOS-based menu creation, etc., etc.). If you're familiar with Linux or Unix, think of it like being the difference between "bash" and "sh": i.e. basically exactly the same functionality and then some. Back in those days I also used to multitask DOS programs using Desqview. The combination of Desqview and 4DOS was probably the ultimate command-line oriented operating system for PC's. Yousuf Khan |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 02/06/2012 9:46 AM, Bob I wrote:
C:\DOS https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~albert.pa...00/doscmd.html Wish I'd found that site when I was doing my Google search before asking here. It's hard to get the exact right search terms. Yousuf Khan |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 03/06/2012 2:28 AM, DK wrote:
In , wrote: On 6/2/2012 8:54 PM PT, Ant typed: Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-) No no! XMS, EMS, conventional memory (EVIL!!), config.sys, autoexec.bat, etc. Oh remember, DoubleSpace, Stacker, etc.? I do. Stacker was absolutely great! But DoubleSpace was horrible. I lost a lot of data due to that one. Yousuf Khan |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
David H. Lipman wrote:
Nah, we haven't touched QEMM, Extended vs. Expanded RAM ;-) Yeah, I remember QEMM. I remember back then of paying something like $2500 for a full-sized memory board fully populated with all of 4 MB of RAM. All the chips were socketed so you bought tubes of memory chips and had to insert them yourself. Cost was more than my entire computer. And to think that edlin.com is still with us from all the way back then. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
GreyCloud wrote:
In my experiences with MS-DOS, I've never seen 4dos.exe. The only thing that I saw was command.com... msdos.sys & io.sys. The bios usually has to do with low-level system calls. I used to have the IBM reference books on those system calls, but never saw things like CD, COPY, REN, etc. in their book. I suppose I could fire up the old IBM I do have and try this myself. 4DOS Caldera OpenDOS aka Novell DOS (after Novell acquired Digital Research) aka DR-DOS (DR = Digital Research) FreeDOS aka PD-DOS Those are the ones that I remember. There were a slew of "hobbyist" DOS shell alternatives but those projects were too tiny to have any impact regarding usage of alternative or replacement command interpreters. Whether or not you even know the DOS shell can be replaced really depends on how long you have been using PCs. Many were introduced as enhanced alternatives to MS/PC-DOS (i.e., richer and more powerful commands and features) or as a consequence of Microsoft's announcement that it would no longer sell MS-DOS (c.1994?). Anyone that bothered to learn MS-DOS would find out how to edit the config.sys file and what all of its settings meant. That meant you would have learned about the 'shell' and what it was for. However, the vast majority of users never bothered to crack open the config files or even look at the options in their apps. They weren't interested in knowing the OS and often understood or used just a fraction of the apps they installed. Using computers wasn't fun for them. It was a chore. It's similar to the difference in users of cars: some like to work on their own cars to fix or enhance them while others just want to use them and pay someone else to repair them. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 03/06/2012 1:56 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 02/06/2012 9:46 AM, Bob I wrote: C:\DOS https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~albert.pa...00/doscmd.html Wish I'd found that site when I was doing my Google search before asking here. It's hard to get the exact right search terms. Yousuf Khan I've found if you use a longer search phrase, usually it's more likely you'll find what you want. Eg, DOS Commands location vs DOS Commands. Rearranging the word order is always worth a try, too. HTH, Wolf K. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
Remember DOS Shell?
-- "What is that?" "Some kind of insect?" "It's an ant." "Girl, you needed an exterminator. She had ants on her face." "Well, these aren't your garden-variety dumpster ants." "And they aren't ... to decomp." "Why are they in her stomach?" "La hormiga culona--leaf cutter ants. It's a Colombian dish." "Are you saying that people eat them?" "Fried." "Okay, so we are looking for a club that serves fried ants." --CSI: Miami (Wannabe episode; #218) /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 03/06/2012 8:25 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 03/06/2012 1:56 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 02/06/2012 9:46 AM, Bob I wrote: C:\DOS https://scs.senecac.on.ca/~albert.pa...00/doscmd.html Wish I'd found that site when I was doing my Google search before asking here. It's hard to get the exact right search terms. Yousuf Khan I've found if you use a longer search phrase, usually it's more likely you'll find what you want. Eg, DOS Commands location vs DOS Commands. Rearranging the word order is always worth a try, too. I think I actually used that search term, "dos commands location" or maybe even "external dos commands location". Yousuf Khan |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Bit of a historical question: MS-DOS
On 03/06/2012 12:21 PM, Ant wrote:
Remember DOS Shell? Yes, but I never used it, by that point I was already using DOS for several years and I was already familiar with the command-line. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|