Windows 98 SE and MS-DOS mode is what I like to use 😀

On older machines, like a 386, I prefer to just use 6.22.

Windows 98(MS-DOS 7.1) does not run all programs correctly, and in my opinion FreeDOS is still somewhat unfinished.
DR-DOS Enhanced is a nice option, but somehow it is not very popular and no one is talking about it mutch.

And what about modified IO.SYS and Command.com files.

It is a good option, that you have a half the size io.sys, that does not have a logo.sys integrated.

Cyberdyne wrote:

Windows 98(MS-DOS 7.1) does not run all programs correctly

Which ones?

Cyberdyne wrote:

And what about modified IO.SYS and Command.com files.

It is a good option, that you have a half the size io.sys, that does not have a logo.sys integrated.

You mean MS-DOS 7.0/7.1 modified files without the logo? Where can I find them?

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Cyberdyne wrote:

Windows 98(MS-DOS 7.1) does not run all programs correctly

Which ones?

Same question. I see this claim brought up from time to time but have yet to see an actual example...

In what way is FreeDOS unfinished?

dr_st wrote:

Same question. I see this claim brought up from time to time but have yet to see an actual example...

Tools that perform low-level disk operations. This is intentional, because tools that aren't LFN and FAT-32 aware could damage the filesystem.
For example: earlier versions of Norton Utilities.

That sounds plausible. However - what prevents them from working? I doubt they are in any way aware of DOS 7.x versions, since they were written before that. Do they check specifically for FAT version? This makes sense. What about LFN? Are they in any way aware of its existence?

It's not a good idea to run tools that don't expect FAT32/LFNs on a FAT32 system.... you can grab scandisk from 98SE for your error repairs and a 3rd party utility to defrag if needed.
I've been using DOS from 98SE in standalone-mode for 10+ years now, haven't found programs other than the ones mentioned above to have issues. If you go FAT32 then you just have to stop using them, no matter what DOS/OS you have installed.

dr_st wrote:

Do they check specifically for FAT version?

The low-level structure of FAT32 is completely different from FAT16 and thus completely unrecognizable to a program that predates FAT32.

What about LFN? Are they in any way aware of its existence?

No. If you run the old disk utilities on a FAT16 partition with long file names, every long file name will be reported as an error. (I think there might have been some options introduced in MS-DOS 6.22 to ignore long filenames.)

Cyberdyne wrote:

Windows 98(MS-DOS 7.1) does not run all programs correctly,

I would also like to know what these programs that do not run correctly are.

and in my opinion FreeDOS is still somewhat unfinished.

The documentation can be kind of spotty, but I am not aware of any particular deficiencies.

DR-DOS Enhanced is a nice option, but somehow it is not very popular and no one is talking about it mutch.

I think people are put off by how the legal issues surrounding it are kind of fuzzy.

And what about modified IO.SYS and Command.com files.

It is a good option, that you have a half the size io.sys, that does not have a logo.sys integrated.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why should the size of io.sys matter at all, except maybe when you're trying to cram extra stuff on a boot floppy?

Jorpho wrote:

What about LFN? Are they in any way aware of its existence?

No. If you run the old disk utilities on a FAT16 partition with long file names, every long file name will be reported as an error. (I think there might have been some options introduced in MS-DOS 6.22 to ignore long filenames.)

I seemed to recall that LFNs are stored separately. There is always an 8.3 name for every file. Thus, non LFN-aware software will only see the short name, and if it manipulates it, the long file name may become 'orphaned'. I also recall Scandisk checking and 'fixing' such issues.

One can just grab DOS files from 98SE and any utilities he wants, make MSDOS.SYS look like that (it goes without say that the paths must be correct)

1[Paths]
2WinDir=C:\DOS
3WinBootDir=C:\DOS
4HostWinBootDrv=C
5
6[Options]
7DisableLog=1
8BootMulti=0
9BootGUI=0
10DoubleBuffer=0
11AutoScan=0
12WinVer=4.10.2222
13;
14;The following lines are required for compatibility with other programs.
15;Do not remove them (MSDOS.SYS needs to be >1024 bytes).
16;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxa
17;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxb
18;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxc
19;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxd
20;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxe
21;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxf
22;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxg
23;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxh
24;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxi
25;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxj
26;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxk
27;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxl
28;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxm
29;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxn
30;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxo
31;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxp
32;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxq
33;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxr
34;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxs
35Logo=0

and one will end up with a standalone DOS that won't display any logos or try to load windows... VER command will still report the windows version though.

FreeDOS does have some issues, Phil made a video about it. It's not worth it to battle with incompatibilities IMHO, stick to the old versions.

dr_st wrote:

I seemed to recall that LFNs are stored separately. There is always an 8.3 name for every file. Thus, non LFN-aware software will only see the short name, and if it manipulates it, the long file name may become 'orphaned'.

Yes, that is also a thing that can happen.

I also recall Scandisk checking and 'fixing' such issues.

I think that would have to be the Windows 95 (or later) version of Scandisk.

Jorpho wrote:

dr_st wrote:

I also recall Scandisk checking and 'fixing' such issues.

I think that would have to be the Windows 95 (or later) version of Scandisk.

Yes, for sure (in case I was not clear enough).

There is a fairly good reason most DOSes don't have FAT32.

Any machine that needs more than 2GB in HDD space is going to be more than fully capable of running Windows 9x. You will be breaking several programs regardless, and will have a hard time overall.

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.

For FAT32, I would give DR-DOS a shot as it's the only organic DOS with FAT-32 support. FreeDOS is fine, but it's a new creation and IMO not worthy of a proper retro system. 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.

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.

In what way is normal DOS not Y2K compatible? I think it mostly relies on BIOS anyways.

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).

dr_st wrote:

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.

In what way is normal DOS not Y2K compatible? I think it mostly relies on BIOS anyways.

PC DOS 2000 (April 1998)
developed by IBM
distributed on 6 1.44MB floppy disks or 1 CD
PC DOS 7.0 revision 1
Y2K support for systems without proper century rollover handling
support added for Euro currency symbol

https://sites.google.com/site/pcdosretro/doshist

Yeah, kind of obscure. I believe all my DOS systems always handled century rollover properly, and none of them was PC DOS 2000.