PDA

View Full Version : any point of useing an older dos then 6.22?



Soviet Conscript
07-27-2010, 02:41 PM
just kind of a curiouse question. are there any games or applications that only work with older versions of dos? i ask because i've read a few sources that reccommend useing dos 5 over 6.22 but is this purely just for the sake of doing something diffrent or do some games acually run better in dos 5? is dos 6.22 much more taxing on say, a 386 pc then if you installed 5?

Jorpho
07-27-2010, 04:09 PM
I have never heard of any need for any version of MS-DOS prior to 6.22. (Setver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DOS_commands#setver) can be used for any program that insists on a particular DOS version number.)

I suppose it's feasible that if you had a DoubleSpace drive that you didn't want to convert to DriveSpace for some reason, then MS-DOS 6.0-6.2 might be desirable. And if you had some really, really ancient piece of technology that didn't even have 640K, then you might need a much older version of MS-DOS. But those are not exactly practical purposes. For a 386, I cannot imagine why MS-DOS 6.22 would be more "taxing".

Really, I've yet to see a good argument against using some of the newer varieties of DR-DOS or OpenDOS instead of MS-DOS 6.22 either.

alec006
07-27-2010, 04:20 PM
No reason really to have any other version of MS-DOS except for maybe fun saying,hey I'm running DOS 1.0 lol. A 386 is pretty much built for MS-DOS,and if you want Windows as well either Windows 3.11 or you can push it to its limits with Windows 95.

Kitsune Sniper
07-27-2010, 04:22 PM
The only reason I can think of would be that certain OS commands or programs are not included in certain versions of DOS.

I'm not familiar enough with it to know if anything was ever removed. I do remember buying a game that refused to install on DOSBox because it kept asking for DOS commands that weren't supported by DOSBox - I had to get them off some DOS install disks.

Pantechnicon
07-27-2010, 04:43 PM
Can't imagine there are any compatibility issues across the various MS-DOS versions. But I'll admit that I'm kind of partial to MS DOS 5.0. I always thought DOSSHELL was kind of spiffy.

Compute
07-27-2010, 06:06 PM
Unless the program in question required EDLIN or something like that, you should be ok. Mmm EDLIN.

phreakindee
07-27-2010, 08:55 PM
Only other reason I can think of is if you have a machine that has a special version of MS-DOS, like the Tandy 1000 machines. While it will run 6.22, there are certain features that are useful to a Tandy in their versions of DOS, like v3.2 with Tandy specific stuff.

Flack
07-27-2010, 10:05 PM
Wow I forgot all about EDLIN. It looks like EDIT was introduced with MS-DOS 5.0 to replace EDLIN. GOD, that brings back old memories!

Jorpho
07-27-2010, 11:03 PM
Unless the program in question required EDLIN or something like that, you should be ok. Mmm EDLIN.The program Mr. Sniper was referring to was probably trying to use the old MS-DOS 5.0 "backup" and "restore" commands, for installation purposes.


But I'll admit that I'm kind of partial to MS DOS 5.0. I always thought DOSSHELL was kind of spiffy.Well, it runs fine in DOS 6.x and even the Win9x command shell. Microsoft even provides the download somewhere.


Wow I forgot all about EDLIN. It looks like EDIT was introduced with MS-DOS 5.0 to replace EDLIN.Yep, and QBasic too. (EDIT.COM requires QBASIC.EXE to run, y'see.)

Ze_ro
07-31-2010, 09:59 PM
The only reason I can think of would be that certain OS commands or programs are not included in certain versions of DOS.
There were actually a lot of small things removed from MS-DOS 6.22, because it was felt that a lot of them were superfluous in a time when Windows was becoming the main focus for Microsoft. However, they did release a supplemental disk for 6.22 that added some of this back in (In fact, you can download it for free from Microsoft (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/117600)). The main one that most people mention is DOS Shell. However, I don't think anything that falls in this category has any effect on games.

I can't remember the exact reason, but I seem to recall there was some value to the mouse driver that was included with DOS 5 (lower memory use? I forget). Of course, this is meaningless now... anyone running a DOS machine these days should be using CuteMouse (http://cutemouse.sourceforge.net/).


I do remember buying a game that refused to install on DOSBox because it kept asking for DOS commands that weren't supported by DOSBox - I had to get them off some DOS install disks.
Yeah, there are actually tons of DOS commands that DOSBox doesn't provide... A lot of them are quite pointless in an emulated computer (like format or chkdsk), but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the occasional game hit on one of them. Some of the built-in commands lack some of the features that Microsoft's versions have... though again, if it was important, they'd likely have included it.

Perhaps you needed CWSDPMI or DOS4GW? Having an HX Extender might also prove helpful, though if you're trying to run a program that needs that, DOSBox likely isn't the best way of doing it.

While we're on this train of thought... is there anyone out there who prefers to run DR-DOS, PC-DOS or FreeDOS instead of MS-DOS?

--Zero

Tempest
08-01-2010, 11:37 AM
Wow this thread takes me back. I can remember spending hours pouring over DOS commands and learning the ins and outs. Even when Windows 95 was the standard I was still using DOSSHELL (which I always saw as DOSS-HELL for some reason) because it was quick, fast, and provided all the interface I needed. Good times. Now I want to get an old DOS computer and run 6.22 and Windows 3.1. I wonder if my modded PCjr can do that?

EDLIN... Dear god! The horrid memories, they're flooding back... ;)

Tempest

Ze_ro
08-02-2010, 02:06 AM
I used to rock DOS Shell all the time too... I couldn't understand what people saw in Windows, when DOS Shell was so fast and (usually) didn't interfere with games.

Funny thing is when I try to use it these days, I find it *really* hasn't aged well... for example, I keep thinking drag & drop will work, but that just selects files...

--Zero

Tokimemofan
11-17-2010, 12:46 AM
No reason really to have any other version of MS-DOS except for maybe fun saying,hey I'm running DOS 1.0 lol. A 386 is pretty much built for MS-DOS,and if you want Windows as well either Windows 3.11 or you can push it to its limits with Windows 95.

Windows 95 on I386?!?!?! Are you insane? (Probably not, common mistake, I did it too!) Took over 3 hours to install with files precopied to the HDD on my I486DX2-66 system, It was only tolerable when I used my Pentium 120. If you must go pre-pentium get a I486DX4-100 or an equivalent overdrive and get a good mobo (ie one of those that can have 256MB of ram, and stuff it too!)

Gameguy
11-17-2010, 01:02 AM
It was only tolerable when I used my Pentium 120
I've used Windows 95 with a Pentium 75MHz processor and it seemed to run alright. I've since upgraded the processor as not that many Windows 95 games would run at that speed, but the OS seemed to run ok.

Rob2600
11-30-2010, 12:02 PM
I couldn't understand what people saw in Windows, when DOS Shell was so fast and (usually) didn't interfere with games.

DOS was more stable and faster (it used fewer system resources)...but, Windows was good for WYSIWYG word processing, and multitasking. Windows was more user-friendly too, for new users who were intimidated by memorizing DOS commands.


Windows 95 on I386?!?!?! Are you insane? ... It was only tolerable when I used my Pentium 120. If you must go pre-pentium get a I486DX4-100 or an equivalent overdrive and get a good mobo (ie one of those that can have 256MB of ram, and stuff it too!)

For a few years in the mid-late 1990s, I used Windows 95 on a Pentium 166 MHz with 32 MB of RAM. I remember it running okay most of the time.

Before that, I was running Windows 3.0 (and later 3.1) on a 386SX 25 MHz with 2 MB of RAM and VGA graphics. It was frustratingly slow and I'd usually buy the DOS version of software and games because they ran faster and in 256 colors instead of 16. (For Windows to display 256 colors, my computer would've needed to support Super VGA graphics, which it didn't.)

Jorpho
11-30-2010, 11:02 PM
Before that, I was running Windows 3.0 (and later 3.1) on a 386SX 25 MHz with 2 MB of RAM and VGA graphics. It was frustratingly slow and I'd usually buy the DOS version of software and games because they ran faster and in 256 colors instead of 16. (For Windows to display 256 colors, my computer would've needed to support Super VGA graphics, which it didn't.)Standard VGA modes were 640480 in 16 colors and 320200 in 256 colors, so either your DOS programs were using a lower resolution or you just didn't have the Windows drivers necessary to access whatever nonstandard video mode your DOS programs were using somehow.

The unified printer and TrueType font support in Windows 3.x was sort of a big deal, too.

Kitsune Sniper
11-30-2010, 11:25 PM
Yeah, there are actually tons of DOS commands that DOSBox doesn't provide... A lot of them are quite pointless in an emulated computer (like format or chkdsk), but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the occasional game hit on one of them. Some of the built-in commands lack some of the features that Microsoft's versions have... though again, if it was important, they'd likely have included it.

Perhaps you needed CWSDPMI or DOS4GW? Having an HX Extender might also prove helpful, though if you're trying to run a program that needs that, DOSBox likely isn't the best way of doing it.

Super late reply!

No, I didn't need CWSDPMI / DOS4GW. The install program never spat out any errors related to those. They were actual DOS commands. I forget the actual commands. I think the DOSBox devs wouldn't add them because they weren't essential or something. Bleh.

Rob2600
11-30-2010, 11:37 PM
Standard VGA modes were 640480 in 16 colors and 320200 in 256 colors, so either your DOS programs were using a lower resolution or you just didn't have the Windows drivers necessary to access whatever nonstandard video mode your DOS programs were using somehow.

Hmm, I guess that's why so many old VGA programs and games look so low res. I remember always running the DOS version of Print Shop Deluxe instead of my Windows version because it ran way faster in DOS. 2 MB of RAM :)


The unified printer and TrueType font support in Windows 3.x was sort of a big deal, too.

You're right, I forgot about that. Good point.

Jorpho
11-30-2010, 11:48 PM
No, I didn't need CWSDPMI / DOS4GW. The install program never spat out any errors related to those. They were actual DOS commands. I forget the actual commands. I think the DOSBox devs wouldn't add them because they weren't essential or something. Bleh.Oh, wait, if it was DOSBox, then it might have just been good ol' XCOPY. There are totally ways to get around that:
http://vogons.zetafleet.com/viewtopic.php?t=14804