China DOS Union

Posted twice!

Super Moderator Wengier: just as you recommended, I only loaded HIMEM.SYS (the result was that it did not go into high memory but into conventional memory; before, I spent quite a lot of time modifying your config files, so I'll leave that alone for now) and the mouse driver. Making an image file of drive C (NTFS5), the comparison is as follows:
System used file size GHOST speed GHOST time
8.0 2999MB 236MB/min 12:41
7.10 2999MB 236MB/min 12:41
Since my CPU is a Pentium 3-733, the speed is relatively slow.
I'm quite satisfied with this result, and no longer need DOS8.0.
Also, I took a look with MEM/c/p and got quite a scare:
Modules using memory below 1Mb:
Name Total = Conventional + Upper Memory
IBMDOS 33,936 (33K) 33,936 (33K) 0 (0K) IBMDOS??
HIMEM 1,152 (1K) 1,152 (1K) 0 (0K)
IFSHLP 2,848 (3K) 2,848 (3K) 0 (0K) This may have been added automatically
COMMAND 7,536 (7K) 7,536 (7K) 0 (0K)
CTMOUSE 3,328 (3K) 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K)
FREE 601,440 (587K) 601,440 (587K) 0 (0K)
Memory summary:
Type of Memory Total = Used + Free
Conventional 650,240 48,800 601,440
Upper 0 0 0
Reserved 0 0 0
Extended (XMS) 401,539,072 1,540,096 399,998,976
Total memory 402,189,312 1,588,896 400,600,416

Total under 1Mb 650,240 48,800 601,440

Total Extended (XMS) 401,539,072 (392,128K)
Free Extended (XMS) 399,998,976 (390,624K)

Largest executable program size 601,184 (587K)
Largest free upper memory block 0 (0K)
Available space in High Memory Area 5,456 (5K)
MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

IBMDOS actually appeared, so I quickly ran VER and it showed: MS-DOS 7.1 , which finally put my mind at ease.

Thanks!!!

ch0f0ch: So that means the earlier drop in GHOST speed really was entirely caused by the EMM386.EXE program. So, aside from being able to boot WinME, "WinDOS 8.0" has no advantages at all over MS-DOS 7.1, and instead has a whole pile of drawbacks (already mentioned above)? Actually, to compare the advantages and disadvantages of different DOS versions, you shouldn't compare only from the perspective of the “Super DOS boot disk,” but should compare the standard DOS boot disks created with them. For example, many of the other MS-DOS 7.1 boot disks I made do not load EMM386.EXE, such as this one below:

http://newdos.yginfo.net/dosware/msdos71b.zip
(This is the standard MS-DOS 7.1 boot disk, not the Super MS-DOS 7.1 boot disk)

As for MEM.EXE showing up as IBMDOS, there's actually no need to worry at all. It's simply this: the MEM command in the “Super MS-DOS 7.1” boot disk in that new version was taken from PC-DOS (also known as IBMDOS), not from the one included with MS-DOS 7.1, in order to save disk space (to clarify, the other MS-DOS 7.1 boot disks I made all use the MEM command that comes with MS-DOS). Before adding this PC-DOS MEM command into this Super MS-DOS 7.1 boot disk, I changed most of the “IBMDOS” strings inside the MEM.EXE file to “SYSTEM” or “MS-DOS”, but a small number were not changed, because they normally would not appear, and that is why MEM occasionally shows the word “IBMDOS”.

Super Moderator Wengier: Thanks!!!
1. I very much agree with your view: 7.10 is more powerful than 8.0. If it weren't for WINME's networking being a bit better than WIN98's, I might never have used 8.0. In 8.0, many commands that need to be used cannot be executed, so calling it a “system” is a bit unsatisfactory. The only reason I used 8.0 before was that it was a little faster than the 7.10 that I didn't know how to configure. Since it can now be configured properly, and its functions are simply incomparable, naturally 8.0 can retire.
2. As for the IBMDOS issue, the reason it gave me such a scare was that my first reaction was: I have a lot of stuff on my hard drive, including a 710 directory containing the full 710 version and NTFS4.03C, then I overlaid it with your super 710 boot disk, and the PATH setting points to C:\710（ (actually it's on drive D, it's just that DOS does not recognize NTFS). I was afraid there was other stuff mixed into C:\710, so I immediately used VER to confirm that there was no problem with C:\710, but I couldn't tell where it was coming from. During the test on November 23, I did not suspect MEM.EXE, because I had two options: with EMM386 it clearly showed SYSTEM, but without EMM386 it changed to IBMDOS. I only understood after your explanation.
3. In your README.TXT from October 12 there is this line:
MEM.EXE The memory information viewing tool included with MS-DOS 7.10
Should that be changed accordingly?
Thanks!!!

The following is quoted from ch0f0ch on 2003-11-24 9:07:22:
3. In your README.TXT from October 12 there is this line:
MEM.EXEMS-DOS7.10's built-in memory information viewing tool
Should that be changed accordingly?
Thanks!!!

Thanks for letting me know. The next time I update the boot disk, I will definitely correct this sentence in the README.TXT documentation file.