I know this can be done via F5/F8 in MS-DOS 6.x but I can't seem to find a way in 5.0.. Internet search would suggest holding down SHIFT should work, but it doesn't?
Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.
In the olden days we just used a boot disk with these removed. Seemed to work quite well. Still does.
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
...or just rename the files and reboot.
I don't know about v5.0 specifically but for earlier versions we used to have batch files that did and reversed that.
wrote:...or just rename the files and reboot.
I don't know about v5.0 specifically but for earlier versions we used to have batch files that did and reversed that.
That's what I ended up doing.. Not elegant but it works.
Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.
I remember this was a great improvement when 6.0 came out! I don't think there is any such thing in 5.0.
wrote:I remember this was a great improvement when 6.0 came out! I don't think there is any such thing in 5.0.
Makes sense. DOS5/6 in theirselves are very simiar by design, with the exception of these little gimmicks.
Going by logic, there's likely no reason to not use DOS 6.x instead.
The only reason here to use DOS 5 likely is to let the room's shutters down and pretend living in 1990 still (aka nostalgia).
But even then, it's just a matter of using a hex editor and changing "6.0" to "5.0". 😉
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//
Once upon a time there was a little company called Digital Research that basically prompted/forced MS to improve it's Dos product. Least we forget.....
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
^I admit this was before my time. As a kid, I rather used PC-MOS/386 instead. 😅
Edit: I also had got a C128 with CP/M 3.0, though. CP/M was by Digital Reasearch, too..
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//
DR Dos had command history built in the kernel. No need for an extra utility to carry out that task. Great task switching and text/numerical cut and pasting between those applications, which could be up to 20 separate programs, Password protection on files and folders. Password sign on. Keyboard lock Of course a file transfer util between systems before interlnk/interserv. Great undelete/unformat commands. Multiple Config.sys and Autoexec.bat selection options on start up, disk compression. Bios, DR Dos kernel and data placed in ni memory etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS
![20191009_121056[1].jpg](./thumbs/29954_a3c6c273781062db73724b922af32934/20191009_121056%5B1%5D.jpg)
Some good reading here as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_DOS … erating_systems
Yeah CP/M was used on quite a number of platforms. Also multi user versions of it then later on Dos. IMSs REAL/32 was a grandson of Concurrent Dos.
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
That's nice but if it doesn't run Windows properly it's no good. Everybody should just run Microsoft software everywhere. It's safer here.
Is this too much voodoo?
wrote:That's nice but if it doesn't run Windows properly it's no good. Everybody should just run Microsoft software everywhere. It's safer here.
Where the hell did you get that from? Windows 3.x runs fine on DR Dos, IBM Dos, PTS Dos, Real/32 and more. Some even added enhancements like the PMCIA support in IBM Dos. Dos development didn't stop at the release of Win95.
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
I was an IBM PC-DOS fanboy back in the day because I hated "M$". All my current systems have Microsoft OSs installed though. Weird.
Once I do my DX4 OS/2 build I will probably dual boot with IBM PC-DOS though.
Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.
Yeah fun times alright. You had to be there to know what it was really like 😉 I personally never hated MS. For personal use just selected software that suited my needs at the time. Most of the time it just wasn't MS software until about 1994 When I replaced my 286 mobo with a second hand 486 mobo when a friend. who was always on the cutting edge, updated to a Pentium mobo. Reused the 1meg SIPPs I had in the 286 by removing their pins to have a whopping 8meg of ram total.. A good start for Windows 3.1 usage.
There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉
wrote:wrote:That's nice but if it doesn't run Windows properly it's no good. Everybody should just run Microsoft software everywhere. It's safer here.
Where the hell did you get that from? Windows 3.x runs fine on DR Dos, IBM Dos, PTS Dos, Real/32 and more. Some even added enhancements like the PMCIA support in IBM Dos. Dos development didn't stop at the release of Win95.
MS modified the Win 3.x files so it wouldn't run properly on specific versions of concurrent DOS back in the day:
wrote:[...]
Edit: I also had got a C128 with CP/M 3.0, though. CP/M was by Digital Reasearch, too..
...and QDOS, that MS bought and renamed MS-DOS 1.1 was a quick and dirty re-implementation of the CP/M for x86. So actually MS and IBM are the derivatives here and DR the original.
If it runs DOS then I use 6.22 - even on XT.
PS... ah DR DOS... my friend back in the 90s was so convinced that it's called "Doctor DOS" and that's how it should be read...
New items (October/November 2022) -> My Items for Sale
wrote:If it runs DOS then I use 6.22 - even on XT.
PS... ah DR DOS... my friend back in the 90s was so convinced that it's called "Doctor DOS" and that's how it should be read...
To this day I still say Doctor DOS and Mister BIOS..
Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.
wrote:wrote:If it runs DOS then I use 6.22 - even on XT.
PS... ah DR DOS... my friend back in the 90s was so convinced that it's called "Doctor DOS" and that's how it should be read...
To this day I still say Doctor DOS and Mister BIOS..
Miss DOS and Piece DOS are still my favourite 😉
New items (October/November 2022) -> My Items for Sale
wrote:MS modified the Win 3.x files so it wouldn't run properly on specific versions of concurrent DOS back in the day:
True. But that never got to the final Windows 3.1 build to make any actual harm. And they latter paid a hefty settlement because of this.
This "If you want to avoid problems only use MS-DOS" was the message they were trying to push so hard back in the days. It was unfounded and an exceptionally bad business practice. In fact MS was evil company back in 80/90s.
Yet I was using MS-DOS too...
XT that does not need any drivers or memory managers i use with DOS 3.31. But anything newer gets a 6.22 or 7.10.
I am aroused about any X86 motherboard that has full functional ISA slot. I think i have problem. Not really into that original (Turbo) XT,286,386 and CGA/EGA stuff. So just a DOS nut.
PS. If I upload RAR, it is a 16-bit DOS RAR Version 2.50.
