From what I understand, anything before version 3.3 was forgettable, the 4.x series was known to be terrible, and MSDOS 5 seems to be the baseline requirement for most 90s DOS games. Comparing version 5 to version 6, and those to their different variants (like 6.2, 6.22, etc.), are there any significant differences?
I can think of a few :
1. Better readability when seeing the numbers of disk sizes, memory info outputs.
2. Memmaker for UMB management and memory management, without needing a third party software.
3. Defrag & Scandisk - also without requiring 3rd party programs.
4. Updated internal commands and device drivers.
MEM command gives more information with more switches available.
5. Multiple Boot configuration blocks in config.sys.
wrote:I can think of a few : […]
I can think of a few :
1. Better readability when seeing the numbers of disk sizes, memory info outputs.
2. Memmaker for UMB management and memory management, without needing a third party software.
3. Defrag & Scandisk - also without requiring 3rd party programs.
4. Updated internal commands and device drivers.
MEM command gives more information with more switches available.
5. Multiple Boot configuration blocks in config.sys.
That's going from version 5 to version 6 I'm guessing?
Well, this applies only if you don't use any third party applications. However when MS-DOS 6 was released for most features already better third party applications were on the market.
The main points I value with MS-DOS 6+ is the easy boot menu configuration built in, which was always a bit critical with third party application with ms-dos 5. And then with MS-DOS 7.1 FAT32 support for using larger partitions, while the tools with MS-DOS 7+ are already stripped down.
I guess everyone has his set of third party tools to extend the basic DOS and most tools work from MS-DOS 3.3+ or at least MS-DOS 5+.
Retronn.de - Vintage Hardware Gallery, Drivers, Guides, Videos. Now with file search
Youtube Channel
FTP Server - Driver Archive and more
DVI2PCIe alignment and 2D image quality measurement tool
wrote:wrote:I can think of a few : […]
I can think of a few :
1. Better readability when seeing the numbers of disk sizes, memory info outputs.
2. Memmaker for UMB management and memory management, without needing a third party software.
3. Defrag & Scandisk - also without requiring 3rd party programs.
4. Updated internal commands and device drivers.
MEM command gives more information with more switches available.
5. Multiple Boot configuration blocks in config.sys.
That's going from version 5 to version 6 I'm guessing?
Oh, yes, I meant that.
If you're asking about the differences between the various 6.xx versions, I think the major difference lies in the disk compression utility :
(In Summary: )
a. MS-DOS 6.0 included DoubleSpace.
b. There was some problem with DoubleSpace (data loss) and MS fixed the DoubleSpace in version 6.2. Scandisk was included in this version.
c. Microsoft got sued for infringing on the copyright of DoubleSpace. Microsoft removed it and released the latest Dos as 6.21
d. Microsoft bought the rights to a DoubleDisk compression utility and renamed it as DriveSpace and released the last dos as 6.22 with DriveSpace included.
And some other updates to certain included programs.
(Forgot all details. Need to refer my DOS 6.22 book to recall.)
Was MS Dos 7 officially released? I remeber hearing there was version embedded in alter windows that was never officially released.
The only MS-DOS 7 "real release!!! its real" i've seen is just some misleading allegedly GPLv2 hackup hoax that reminds me of a certain Bart's Boot disk....
other than that fake piece of shit, the only real MS-DOS 7 gets no realer than the COMMAND subfolder in Windows 95/98/ME.
wrote:Was MS Dos 7 officially released? I remeber hearing there was version embedded in alter windows that was never officially released.
MS-DOS 7 didn't have it's own official launch, it's own retail release, etc. It was just included with Windows 9x, as the "updated" MS-DOS version.
The DOS included in Win9x was version 7, but it was never available as a standalone product. There were, however, some unofficial (and not quite legal) releases of it... I think the Wengier/China DOS Union release was the most famous one.
Why even bother with some ancient commercial OS, which is STILL not free and hasn't been updated in decades... when there is FreeDOS?
Because for some reason people are convinced FreeDOS may not be perfectly compatible with everything.
Also, the documentation is kind of a mess. I mean, try to find out if it runs Windows 3.x or not and the first thing you're likely to find is a completely irrelevant technote from ten years ago. It's silly.
I once read somewhere that MSDOS 5 uses less conventional memory than 6.xx. Is that true at all?
wrote:I once read somewhere that MSDOS 5 uses less conventional memory than 6.xx. Is that true at all?
Yes, MSDOS 5's kernel takes up less conventional mem compared to MSDOS 6. A few KB less.
For this reason, some see DOS 6 as "bloated", others see it as due to the MSDOS 6's updated internal commands which have additional functionalities, like additional switches/parameters for programs and the in-built multibioot config.
I see it as the latter, since the additional kb is in no way obstructive to programs and games, and with better memory management, DOS 6 can be further customized, both automatically and manually.
Besides, can't you load more of MS-DOS 6 into high memory anyway?
Yep, better memory management in MS-DOS 6.xx.
So there's no real point then in trying to get a copy of MSDOS 5.
Another thing I wonder, if version 6.22 is better than version 5, then why is the version of DOS used in the NTVDM based on version 5?
wrote:So there's no real point then in trying to get a copy of MSDOS 5.
Another thing I wonder, if version 6.22 is better than version 5, then why is the version of DOS used in the NTVDM based on version 5?
MS-DOS 6.xx to MS-DOS 5.0 is like Windows 3.1 or 3.11 to Windows 3.0 - a superset that is improved and "polished".
DOS 5.0 came with a big bang, which was really a major overhaul in it's lineage, especially after the buggy DOS 4.x.
DOS 6.xx improved upon the DOS 5, culminating in the last ever retail standalone MS-DOS - the 6.22.
wrote:Another thing I wonder, if version 6.22 is better than version 5, then why is the version of DOS used in the NTVDM based on version 5?
Most likely, it's just because NT 3.1 (the first version of NT) came out before MS-DOS 6, and Microsoft never saw the need to update the VDM beyond what was included there.
I just thought about that, it does make sense.
