Ampera wrote:There is a fairly good reason most DOSes don't have FAT32.
I agree with that. Also, older databases or disk utilities (like Compress) can't handle FAT32.
Windows 3.x may also fall into this category. I don't know for sure, but I think I read something about
problems with the (Windows) directory index beeing damaged under some circumstances (if it is located on a FAT32 volume).
Ampera wrote:
My personal favorite is PC-DOS 2000. It's an amazing version of DOS with all the trimmings, a beautiful text editor, and every single command you need. It's also Y2K compatible, if one should give a damn.
PC-DOS 7.1 is said to have FAT32, too. It even runs on 8088 machines, I heard.
Ampera wrote:
FreeDOS is fine, but it's a new creation and IMO not worthy of a proper retro system.
I'm fine with FreeDOS, but I don't like the Linux-style package managment. It evokes bad memories of the 90s/early 2000s.
Especially annoying is the fact that you can't choose all packages at the begining and let the installation proceed on its own..
For some reason the FreeDOS guys thought it was a good idea to have the user waiting one its machine, just to press Enter
10 times until all categories were passed. On an XT machine, this must be fun as hell.
Ampera wrote:
I don't trust the CDU MS-DOS 7.1 compilation that is floating around, and there have been compatibility issues outside the regular FAT-32 stuff. It also isn't an organic from the time DOS.
If DOS 4.x (non-multitasking version) wasn't so incompatible, someone could have written a device driver for it to
retro-fit it for FAT32 (it had and installable fileystem feature).
"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//