I'd say Windows 98 SE, since a lot of DOS games will work right away, with sound and everything, just launching the .exe file. But you can also make shortcuts to boot the system in pure DOS with their own autoexec.bat and config.sys, so you can really fine tune things for specific games.

It also has the advantage of the USB mass storage drivers, as you said. If you're not installing a CF card as a hard drive, you'd have to deal with zip drives, floppies, cds, etc.

I also prefer Win98se. It gives you the best of both worlds, Win/DirectX gaming up to v9, and DOS gaming in both Windows or a true DOS boot.

It is trivial to make shortcuts in Windows to DOS games that exit out of Windows and return when the game exits. Or if you prefer, use the old boot menu trick to give you the option to boot to DOS or Windows.

I've heard many good things about 98SE and it should be the best option if you want to play DOS games, though if I intend te machine to be a mostly Windows games machine, then I prefer ME over 98SE as it is easier to setup (it's more complete out-of-the-box) and has worked perfectly fine for what it was.

But I think in your case 98SE would be a better deal, especially if you don't have ME laying around anyway (I wouldn't touch 98FE though, that was a rather unstable experience for me).

Dougal wrote:

But for dos games Dos6.22 + Win3.11 or Win 95 is more compatible.

People sometimes speculate that there are games that will run under DOS 6.22 but not Windows 98SE rebooted into MS-DOS mode, but it seems to me no one has actually confirmed an instance where this is the case.

Whatever programs there may be that run under Windows 3.x but not Windows 98SE, you probably won't want to play them.

I am going to attempt (when I get some time) to dual boot Windows 98SE (and use it strictly for Win9x gaming and applications) and MS DOS 7.10 with a PIII system. That's what I would recommend.

I love MS DOS 7.10 because it allows use of FAT32 drives and is so easy to setup and get going and it includes absolutely everything (QBASIC, DOSSHELL, etc.) that MS DOS software ever came with all wrapped up in one 'package'.

I like to keep win9x and DOS separate...so much so that I am considering just installing each on a separate HDD and just swapping with a 'hot swap' tray enclosure (even though it will not be 'hot swappable').

retrofanatic wrote:

I am going to attempt (when I get some time) to dual boot Windows 98SE (and use it strictly for Win9x gaming and applications) and MS DOS 7.10 with a PIII system. That's what I would recommend.

This seems wildly unnecessary when you can just "Restart in MS-DOS mode", unless that's what you're referring to.

I love MS DOS 7.10 because it allows use of FAT32 drives and is so easy to setup and get going and it includes absolutely everything (QBASIC, DOSSHELL, etc.) that MS DOS software ever came with all wrapped up in one 'package'.

Are you referring to Microsoft's OLDDOS.EXE ? Because that's not an MS-DOS 7.10 exclusive.

Jorpho wrote:

This seems wildly unnecessary when you can just "Restart in MS-DOS mode", unless that's what you're referring to.

Lol..I know it is unnecessary, but I wouldn't say "wildly unnecessary" though in the context of this forum...Isn't almost everything we do on Vogons "wildly unnecessary" 🤣? I mean who really needs thirty different socket 7 motherboards and twenty 486 computers, and 100 different sound cards....(you get the point)...I do 🤣...and who really needs DOS installed on one hard drive and win9x on another? Again, I do, because I have like a zillion hard drives and I might as well use them...I like to isolate each OS to it's own partition and better yet, to it's own physical drive if I can...if one drive fails, I can still use the other OS while I'm re installing the other, on the other drive...man I love redundancy, especially when it can be had for only a few dollars. I guess it is personal preference. I think it would be "wildly unnecessary" though if a 40GB hard drive cost more than $5 (what I can get them for these days).

Jorpho wrote:

Are you referring to Microsoft's OLDDOS.EXE ? Because that's not an MS-DOS 7.10 exclusive.

Excuse my ignorance but I do not know what you mean by OLDDOS.EXE...I am talking about this version of DOS 7.10 I stumbled upon, on the internet a while ago http://www.syschat.com/download60.html

It is the best DOS version I have ever installed on my retro systems.

retrofanatic wrote:

Lol..I know it is unnecessary, but I wouldn't say "wildly unnecessary" though in the context of this forum...Isn't almost everyt […]
Show full quote

Jorpho wrote:

This seems wildly unnecessary when you can just "Restart in MS-DOS mode", unless that's what you're referring to.

Lol..I know it is unnecessary, but I wouldn't say "wildly unnecessary" though in the context of this forum...Isn't almost everything we do on Vogons "wildly unnecessary" 🤣? I mean who really needs thirty different socket 7 motherboards and twenty 486 computers, and 100 different sound cards....(you get the point)...I do 🤣...and who really needs DOS installed on one hard drive and win9x on another? Again, I do, because I have like a zillion hard drives and I might as well use them...I like to isolate each OS to it's own partition and better yet, to it's own physical drive if I can...if one drive fails, I can still use the other OS while I'm re installing the other, on the other drive...man I love redundancy, especially when it can be had for only a few dollars. I guess it is personal preference. I think it would be "wildly unnecessary" though if a 40GB hard drive cost more than $5 (what I can get them for these days).

Jorpho wrote:

Are you referring to Microsoft's OLDDOS.EXE ? Because that's not an MS-DOS 7.10 exclusive.

Excuse my ignorance but I do not know what you mean by OLDDOS.EXE...I am talking about this version of DOS 7.10 I stumbled upon, on the internet a while ago http://www.syschat.com/download60.html

It is the best DOS version I have ever installed on my retro systems.

I get what you're saying. I do the same thing. I also recommend Windows 98SE for this build.

I don't get why everyone here is obsessed with MSDOS and it's bloated shell Windows 98. I would recommend Win2K and FreeDOS (as I always do 🤣).

I don't get why people recommend FreeDOS as a gaming OS either. It does have uses like for maintenance, diagnositcs and bios operations, but for gaming it falls short in that to me.

Win2000 is also a bad choice for running DOS games, which is something she/he wishes to do.

I have been using MS-DOS 7.1 for a very long time and not run into a single game that gave me issues.

It uses a little bit more memory but I had no issues getting games like Ultima 7 going.

For beginners setting up a hybrid W98SE / MS-DOS 7.1 machine could be tricky though as you need to know how Windows does things. You don't want to load DOS device drivers in the AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS that get loaded with Windows. There are many guides that do this and it's really noobish 🤣

I really like the method I used in my Video of building a hybrid W95 / DOS machine with shortcuts. It's quite elegant and leaves Windows and DOS totally separate.

Have tried FreeDOS and simply can't recommend it.

retrofanatic wrote:

Excuse my ignorance but I do not know what you mean by OLDDOS.EXE...I am talking about this version of DOS 7.10 I stumbled upon, on the internet a while ago http://www.syschat.com/download60.html

If that's the package I'm thinking of, then it's illegal as hell. The numbskull that put it together says it's GPL licensed... Just...no.

I'm not saying it isn't rad or useful though, because it is totally both of those things.

SquallStrife wrote:

retrofanatic wrote:

Excuse my ignorance but I do not know what you mean by OLDDOS.EXE...I am talking about this version of DOS 7.10 I stumbled upon, on the internet a while ago http://www.syschat.com/download60.html

If that's the package I'm thinking of, then it's illegal as hell. The numbskull that put it together says it's GPL licensed... Just...no.

I'm not saying it isn't rad or useful though, because it is totally both of those things.

Thanks for letting me know...I figured as much so later, I actually just used that DOS 7.10 install as a guide that helped me put together my 'own' DOS 7.10 from the DOS extracted from my official Win98se software. I just added dosshell, qbasic or anything like that which was missing from a 'complete' MS DOS package. I always thought my (official) copy of DOS 6.22 was complete, but I soon realized that small tools like DOSSHELL were missing, and I wanted everything that MS DOS had to offer, even though I may not use everything all the time...If I am going to go through the trouble of installing DOS and having a DOS computer, "DOS 7.1" (extracted from my Win98SE with some added goodies I copy over from my other official DOS disks seems to be the most complete solution.

I first saw that DOS 7.10 on a youtube video...it had a splash screen that I thought was pretty cool, so I looked online and found it right away...Besides the added drivers and install program and splash screen, it's essentially DOS extracted from Win98SE.

The great thing about being into retro hardware (and software) is that old used (i.e. Win 98SE) genuine software is very cheap and readily available or I just still own the copies I had when I purchased my original retro computers back in the day, so I have all original, genuine software right from DOS 3.3 up to WIN XP. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I have been using MS-DOS 7.1 for a very long time and not run into a single game that gave me issues. […]
Show full quote

I have been using MS-DOS 7.1 for a very long time and not run into a single game that gave me issues.

It uses a little bit more memory but I had no issues getting games like Ultima 7 going.

For beginners setting up a hybrid W98SE / MS-DOS 7.1 machine could be tricky though as you need to know how Windows does things. You don't want to load DOS device drivers in the AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS that get loaded with Windows. There are many guides that do this and it's really noobish 🤣

...Have tried FreeDOS and simply can't recommend it.

I've had similar experiences and I have to say I totally agree.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I really like the method I used in my Video of building a hybrid W95 / DOS machine with shortcuts. It's quite elegant and leaves Windows and DOS totally separate.

Very cool setup...I may try something like that one day.

leileilol wrote:

I don't get why people recommend FreeDOS as a gaming OS either. It does have uses like for maintenance, diagnositcs and bios operations, but for gaming it falls short in that to me.

Win2000 is also a bad choice for running DOS games, which is something she/he wishes to do.

Again, I totally agree. I tried Win2000 and FreeDOS, albeit not together, but in separate systems and I had many issues with DOS gaming that I have never had with Win98SE and 'DOS 7.1'.

retrofanatic wrote:

Lol..I know it is unnecessary, but I wouldn't say "wildly unnecessary" though in the context of this forum...Isn't almost everything we do on Vogons "wildly unnecessary" 🤣?

Some things are more unnecessary than others. I can hardly conceive of any practical reason to have separate partitions for MS-DOS 7.10 and Windows 98SE when the former is an integral component of the latter, especially when using separate partitions requires you to constantly shuffle drive letters.

...To be sure, there are probably many things I do for no practical reason, but I certainly wouldn't recommend them to someone else.

retrofanatic wrote:

I always thought my (official) copy of DOS 6.22 was complete, but I soon realized that small tools like DOSSHELL were missing, and I wanted everything that MS DOS had to offer, even though I may not use everything all the time...

MS-DOS 6.x never included DOSSHELL. Microsoft released a "Supplemental Disk" that included such utilities. Similarly, when Windows 95 was released, Microsoft released a package most easily referred to as OLDDOS.EXE that included DOSSHELL and memmaker and the like. There really is nothing particularly miraculous about a package some random Internet person put together that includes these things.

Also I am guessing you will probably never use QBasic.

so I have all original, genuine software right from DOS 3.3 up to WIN XP. Wouldn't have it any other way.

But the "DOS 7.1" you downloaded is definitely not genuine.

Jorpho wrote:

...To be sure, there are probably many things I do for no practical reason, but I certainly wouldn't recommend them to someone else.

Well that's too bad, because it's nice to hear your opinions and it should be ok to hear mine as well...because that's what these forums are for, recommending things based on your opinions...I see where your coming from and I acknowledged your point as being a good one by admiting that what I am doing is "unnecessary" and I do believe that my 'solution' is not perfect, but rather something that I prefer...I did give a reason after all why I prefer them to be on separate drives (redundancy and preference in keeping each OS on separate drives) and based on those reasons there is a certain level of practicality that may not be in agreement with your opinion, but that's ok I think, no harm done.

Jorpho wrote:

MS-DOS 6.x never included DOSSHELL.

I know this...that was my point....that's what I said in my post and that's why I said I had to copy it from an old set of DOS 5 disks.

Jorpho wrote:

Microsoft released a "Supplemental Disk" that included such utilities. Similarly, when Windows 95 was released, Microsoft released a package most easily referred to as OLDDOS.EXE that included DOSSHELL and memmaker and the like.

Oh right...now I remember...now I know what you mean by OLDDOS.EXE . thanks for the info....Actually I think I have one of those "Supplemental Disks" somewhere.

Jorpho wrote:

There really is nothing particularly miraculous about a package some random Internet person put together that includes these things.

I totally agree with you and I never really said that it was that miraculous, I just said that I think DOS 7.1 is the best in my opinion. I was just trying to provide my opinion in relation to this topic...I will try to be more careful next time when I post, I didn't realize how sensitive this matter was

Jorpho wrote:

Also I am guessing you will probably never use QBasic.

🤣 I see how someone can think that but actually I have used it lately to revive some of the small "Choose your own adventure" type games I wrote in QBASIC with a friend in high school back in the day....I wouldn't be too quick to judge.🤣

Jorpho wrote:

But the "DOS 7.1" you downloaded is definitely not genuine.

I think this SquallStrife already mentioned this in the post above and that was already discussed...you're right, it's probably not, so what's your point?

For whatever it's worth and for whatever reason, I will let you know again that as I mentioned in my post, I am using all genuine software...that you can be sure of...if that makes you sleep better at night 🤣

retrofanatic wrote:

Jorpho wrote:

But the "DOS 7.1" you downloaded is definitely not genuine.

I think this SquallStrife already mentioned this in the post above and that was already discussed...you're right, it's probably not, so what's your point?

For whatever it's worth and for whatever reason, I will let you know again that as I mentioned in my post, I am using all genuine software...that you can be sure of...if that makes you sleep better at night 🤣

Oh, I for one don't really care what you run. It's just strange that you suggest running "genuine software" matters a great deal to you when at the same time you seem to be extremely pleased with this downloadable "DOS 7.1" which is pretty much just an unofficial, misrepresented hack distributed illegally.

Jorpho wrote:

Oh, I for one don't really care what you run. It's just strange that you suggest running "genuine software" matters a great deal to you when at the same time you seem to be extremely pleased with this downloadable "DOS 7.1" which is pretty much just an unofficial, misrepresented hack distributed illegally.

Is that the point you were trying to get across before then? Sorry if my response seems strange to you. Actually your response seems strange to me in that you say you don't care, but you persist in pointing out that the "downloadable 'DOS 7.1'...is pretty much just an unofficial, misrepresented hack distributed illegally". In this regard, it actually seems like you actually do care a lot, and I really don't know why. I already agreed with SquallStrife regarding this before you even posted in this topic (as mentioned already). Again, for whatever it's worth, you don't have to worry, all my software is legal. If there is something I did wrong here, please let me know and I will be more than happy to apologize if need be or try to rectify the situation (whatever it may be).

leileilol wrote:

I don't get why people recommend FreeDOS as a gaming OS either. It does have uses like for maintenance, diagnositcs and bios operations, but for gaming it falls short in that to me.

Win2000 is also a bad choice for running DOS games, which is something she/he wishes to do.

Everyone here keeps saying that but I've never heard any concrete arguments. I must say the installer tries really hard to break things and the standard choice of drivers is sub-optimal, but once you got a working system everything works fine.

Win2K is a bad choice for DOS games but a P3-800 is very capable of running Windows games too. I'd say Win2K is very stable compared to Win9x and performance tends to be better, however in games that mainly depends on video drivers (which used to be not so great for 2K).

My main reason for sticking with MS is because using something else adds another variable you need to deal with when something doesn't work. Working with old Computers is a black hole for time, the last thing I need is ANOTHER problem to fix 🤣

A copy of W98SE isn't hard to source and to get a basic system going bootdisk.com has great floppy images with most files you need.

One OS that really NEVER gets mentioned is DR DOS. I read up on the legal situation and followed a few links but couldn't get a straight answer. Some images on various University FTPS, but on the official site you have to pay.