Gmlb256 wrote on 2023-07-16, 00:40:
simon_e_hall wrote on 2023-07-15, 13:39:Was fooling around with the new Bing and asked it this question, but was there any real evidence? When I worked in the military, as soon as NT 3.51 was certified we started using that, MS-DOS 6.22 was only really used to prepare a disk or used on legacy training systems, nothing important, so I think it is an urban myth, but would be happy to be wrong.
Did a search on this years ago, but never found anything concrete, what are the thoughts or proof from the wider community?
Those rumors about these non-existent versions existed way before these chatbots. From Microsoft, only MS-DOS 7.1 and 8.0 supported FAT32 but they were treated as part of the Windows 9x kernel (unofficially, MS-DOS 7.x can be used like older standalone versions).
I think the same. I heard rumors about an enhanced DOS 6.x even back in the 90s.
It was being mentioned in magazines or books, I vaguely remember.
Not sure if it existed, though. I mean, it's not unlikely.
Years before, there was an early multi-tasking DOS (MS-DOS 4, circa 1986) that wasn't officially being sold.
It was being used in Europe, by Siemens and other industrial companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS_4.0_(multitasking)
Maybe that's why there's some rumor about a secret version of DOS 6.x.
I can only speculate about it at this point, of course. 🤷♂️
- And pray that my post isn't being misunderstood by some crazy KI algorithm.
But on the other hand, there were weird, unofficial releases (OEM) at the time.
Like Windows 3.0 MME on CD, WfW 3.11 on CD, MS-DOS 6.2x on CD - with a bootable diskette.
Some WfW 3.11 versions in Germany also shipped with ISDN support and a FAX software (?)..
So why shouldn't a DOS 6.22/DOS 7 hybrid not have existed?
It would have made sense that some institutions were still depending on DOS back then when Microsoft decided to pull the plug for DOS.
MS-DOS 7 was technically usable as a standalone version, but it lacked an installer,
had certain incompatibilities (see LOCK command, v7.x version number etc) and lacked all the DOS 6.x utilities (aka "external commands").
But many programs needed them to function (batch files etc).
So there technically really was a demand for a drop-in replacement for DOS 6.22 in the mid-late 90s.
Something that was more recent, like what the competition had at hand.
I mean, Windows XP also got unofficial updates/patches after being EOL.
However, they were only being made available for governments and the industry.
PS: Speaking of books, I got a "DOS 7" book back then.
It was about how to use the Windows 9x DOS independently and how great it was.
So even back then people used DOS 7.x without Windows.
Windows 95 OSR2 reports 7.1, with FAT32 support.
Aka Windows 95 "B", if I remember correctly.
But back in the 90s that wasn't so widely known, except to those into PC magazines.
Officially, Windows 95 RTM was the shelve release that's being sold.
Merely people who bought a Windows 95 PC got that new Windows 95 CD "with USB support".
Of course, there already was some kind of OEM/SB market in the 90s.
But that wasn't so apparent, I suppose.
People where officially being introduced to USB, DOS 7.1 and FAT32 with the release of Windows 98/98SE.
"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//