any point of useing an older dos then 6.22?

[Tokimemofan]

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]

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]

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]

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 640×480 in 16 colors and 320×200 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.

[Rob2600]

Standard VGA modes were 640×480 in 16 colors and 320×200 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.