VOGONS


First post, by DOSfan1994

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Hello I have a something to ask.

Does anyone know a very good memory manager for DOS/Windows 3.1? Which can almost run anything? WIthout damaging the computer.

Here are some of what I am asking which one is the best. Memmaker, QEMM or 386max.

Reply 1 of 76, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Back in the day you couldnt live without QEMM where I live but in retrogaming it seems to have died a silent death though I do not know why it became so much less useful now.. Maybe DOS 5.0 vs 6.22 memory tools are really that different in quality?

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 2 of 76, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
appiah4 wrote:

Back in the day you couldnt live without QEMM where I live but in retrogaming it seems to have died a silent death though I do not know why it became so much less useful now.. Maybe DOS 5.0 vs 6.22 memory tools are really that different in quality?

My past experience and what I remember from the past about QEMM is actually different (although probably where we live is quite the same). It was a real thing during the MS-DOS 4.01 and even MS-DOS 5.0 times, but with the intoduction of MS-DOS 6.x it became less and less relevant/popular, just like other helper sofware (Stacker, Norton Utilities, PCTools, etc.). Plus, even back in the day, it's level of compatibility was not 100% undisputed.

When I started getting deeper into the world of PCs, MS-DOS 5.0 had just been released (1991-92), people was moving from 4.01 to 5.0 already, so our experience might be diffrent because of this (if you are an even older fart compared to me, I mean.. 🤣).

What 6.22 gives is a more than accepable level of memory control with less hooplas, and it gives it free.

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000

Reply 5 of 76, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
oeuvre wrote:

It is quite cool to see 635K conventional free with QEMM

Ditto for the coolness factor. 🤣

I'm not sure if there are any DOS executables that will not work with "only" 615-620K, which is easily achiveable with memmaker.

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000

Reply 6 of 76, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
tayyare wrote:
oeuvre wrote:

It is quite cool to see 635K conventional free with QEMM

Ditto for the coolness factor. 🤣

I'm not sure if there are any DOS executables that will not work with "only" 615-620K, which is easily achiveable with memmaker.

There were many many ganes I couldnt run without QEMM back in the day, though ask me to name them today and I couldnt remember a single one..

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 7 of 76, by Unknown_K

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

QEMM was very popular, and if you used Desqview for DOS app switching you needed it. If you have CDROM extensions and used network cards in DOS and still wanted to play games it was the way to go.

386max was used by people who worked with Microsoft C++ (came in the huge box).

Memmaker was used by most people because it came with DOS 6.x

DRDOS also had its own popular memory manager but I forget the name, worked well.

Collector of old computers, hardware, and software

Reply 8 of 76, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
appiah4 wrote:
tayyare wrote:
oeuvre wrote:

It is quite cool to see 635K conventional free with QEMM

Ditto for the coolness factor. 🤣

I'm not sure if there are any DOS executables that will not work with "only" 615-620K, which is easily achiveable with memmaker.

There were many many ganes I couldnt run without QEMM back in the day, though ask me to name them today and I couldnt remember a single one..

I had none. I was not that big in playing games though, I should admit. There were 20-30 pure DOS games at most I ever played back in the days and some of them already have their own extenders. It's still hard to assume game developing companies of that era were designing and marketing games that cannot be loaded without owning another commercial software.

One thing I clearly remembered is though, I had very complicated and long multiple option autoexec.bat and config.sys files for many situations (everything and EMS, everything and XMS, nothing, mouse + CD, mouse +CD+Win3.11, etc.). Probably this was helping a lot. 😊

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000

Reply 9 of 76, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
tayyare wrote:
I had none. I was not that big in playing games though, I should admit. There were 20-30 pure DOS games at most I ever played ba […]
Show full quote

I had none. I was not that big in playing games though, I should admit. There were 20-30 pure DOS games at most I ever played back
in the days and some of them already have their own extenders. It's still hard to assume game developing companies of that era were
designing and marketing games that cannot be loaded without owning another commercial software.

One thing I clearly remembered is though, I had very complicated and long multiple option autoexec.bat and config.sys files
for many situations (everything and EMS, everything and XMS, nothing, mouse + CD, mouse +CD+Win3.11, etc.). Probably this was
helping a lot. 😊

Me, too, you're not alone with this. I had a 286 only, so I couldn't use any of them. Maybe it was better that way. 😉
Running DOS games on Win98 is about the same as using one of them (both use V86).

Also, I loved playing Windows 3.1 games, also because they ran on a reasonable resolution.
Never understood all the hype about these low-res 320x200 graphics (at the time)..
I used to play games in 640x480. That's what "normal" VGA was to me.
The other one was QVGA.

Even in DOS, several of my favorites used that resolution (Digger, Asteroid, EGATrek [used 640x350] etc.)
These were shareware and public domain titles, of course. Not commercial titles.

When it comes to commercial, "real" games, I played video games.
On the NES, Gameboy and SNES. I also played MegaDrive games at a friend's house.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself. I told the whole story already.

Re: Windows Me - "Misunderstood Edition"
Re: Win95. yea or nay?

"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//

Reply 10 of 76, by oeuvre

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Here's a bit of a comparison of MS-DOS 6.22 + Memmaker and some other tweaks I've found oeuvre the years against QEMM 7.5

System is emulated with 86Box but the hardware is as follows:

486DX2 66MHz
16MB RAM
Creative Sound Blaster 2.0
TSENG ET4000 W32p

AUTOEXEC.BAT

SET SOUND=C:\SB
SET BLASTER=A220 I7 D1 T3
SET MIDI=SYNTH:1 MAP:E
SET MTCPCFG=C:\NET\TCP.CFG
LH /L:0;2,272 /S C:\DOS\ENVIMAX N+
LH /L:0;1,45456 /S C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.EXE /X
@ECHO OFF
PROMPT $p$g
PATH C:\WINDOWS;C:\DOS;
SET TEMP=C:\DOS
SET PATH=%PATH%;C:\CDROM
LH /L:0;1,3328 /S MOUSE
LH /L:0;1,6352 /S C:\CDROM\SHCDX33F.COM /D:MSCD000
LH C:\WINDOWS\net start
LH C:\DOS\DOSKEY

CONFIG.SYS

SWITCHES /F
DOS=HIGH,UMB
BUFFERS=11,0
FILES=50
LASTDRIVE=F
FCBS=1,0
STACKS=0,0
DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS /Q /TESTMEM:OFF /NUMHANDLES=128
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE AUTO RAM NOTR
DEVICEHIGH /L:1,24304 =C:\SB\DRV\CTSB2.SYS /UNIT=0 /BLASTER=A:220 I:7 D:1
DEVICEHIGH /L:2,10416 =C:\SB\DRV\CTMMSYS.SYS
DEVICEHIGH /L:1,12048 =C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
DEVICEHIGH /L:1,11264 =C:\CDROM\VIDE-CDD.SYS /D:MSCD000
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\IFSHLP.SYS

MEM /C OUTPUT

Modules using memory below 1 MB:

Name Total = Conventional + Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
MSDOS 13,517 (13K) 13,517 (13K) 0 (0K)
HIMEM 1,168 (1K) 1,168 (1K) 0 (0K)
EMM386 3,120 (3K) 3,120 (3K) 0 (0K)
IFSHLP 3,872 (4K) 3,872 (4K) 0 (0K)
COMMAND 2,928 (3K) 2,656 (3K) 272 (0K)
CTSB2 24,288 (24K) 0 (0K) 24,288 (24K)
SETVER 512 (1K) 0 (0K) 512 (1K)
VIDE-CDD 5,056 (5K) 0 (0K) 5,056 (5K)
SMARTDRV 29,024 (28K) 0 (0K) 29,024 (28K)
MOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
SHCDX33F 6,352 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,352 (6K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
CTMMSYS 10,400 (10K) 0 (0K) 10,400 (10K)
Free 636,608 (622K) 630,864 (616K) 5,744 (6K)

Memory Summary:

Type of Memory Total = Used + Free
---------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Show last 102 lines
  Conventional         655,360       24,496      630,864
Upper 88,944 83,200 5,744
Reserved 393,216 393,216 0
Extended (XMS)* 15,639,696 2,598,032 13,041,664
---------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total memory 16,777,216 3,098,944 13,678,272
Total under 1 MB 744,304 107,696 636,608
Total Expanded (EMS) 16,056,320 (15,680K
Free Expanded (EMS)* 13,287,424 (12,976K

* EMM386 is using XMS memory to simulate EMS memory as needed.
Free EMS memory may change as free XMS memory changes.

Largest executable program size 630,848 (616K)
Largest free upper memory block 3,872 (4K)
MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

QEMM AUTOEXEC.BAT

@C:\ADDOS\AD_WRAP.EXE
SET SOUND=C:\SB
SET BLASTER=A220 I7 D1 T3
SET MIDI=SYNTH:1 MAP:E
SET MTCPCFG=C:\NET\TCP.CFG
C:\QEMM\LOADHI /R:3 /LO C:\DOS\ENVIMAX N+
C:\QEMM\LOADHI /R:2 /LO C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.EXE /X
@ECHO OFF
PROMPT $p$g
PATH C:\QEMM;C:\WINDOWS;C:\DOS;
SET TEMP=C:\DOS
SET PATH=%PATH%;C:\CDROM;C:\ADDOS
C:\QEMM\LOADHI /R:4 /LO MOUSE
C:\QEMM\LOADHI /R:4 /LO C:\CDROM\SHCDX33F.COM /D:MSCD000
C:\WINDOWS\net start
C:\QEMM\LOADHI /R:4 C:\DOS\DOSKEY

QEMM CONFIG.SYS

SWITCHES /F
DOS=HIGH,UMB
BUFFERS=11,0
FILES=50
LASTDRIVE=F
FCBS=1,0
STACKS=0,0
device=c:\qemm\dosdata.sys
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\QEMM386.SYS RAM R:3
device=c:\qemm\dos-up.sys @c:\qemm\dos-up.dat
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:3 /RES=1888 /SQT=EF00-EFFF /SIZE=9872 C:\QEMM\QDPMI.SYS SWAPFILE=DPMI.SWP SWAPSIZE=1024
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:1 /SIZE=24528 C:\SB\DRV\CTSB2.SYS /UNIT=0 /BLASTER=A:220 I:7 D:1
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:4 /SIZE=10640 C:\SB\DRV\CTMMSYS.SYS
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:4 /SIZE=14032 C:\DOS\SETVER.EXE
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:4 /SIZE=11488 C:\CDROM\VIDE-CDD.SYS /D:MSCD000
DEVICE=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.SYS /R:1 /SIZE=4848 C:\WINDOWS\IFSHLP.SYS
SHELL=C:\QEMM\LOADHI.COM /R:2 C:\COMMAND.COM C:\ /P

QEMM MEM /C OUTPUT

Modules using memory below 1 MB:

Name Total = Conventional + Upper Memory
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
SYSTEM 4,189 (4K) 969,805 (947K) 4,294,00 (4,193,
QEMM386 912 (1K) 912 (1K) 0 (0K)
LOADHI 112 (0K) 112 (0K) 0 (0K)
CTSB2 24,256 (24K) 0 (0K) 24,256 (24K)
IFSHLP 3,920 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,920 (4K)
FILES 2,688 (3K) 0 (0K) 2,688 (3K)
FCBS 96 (0K) 0 (0K) 96 (0K)
WKBUFFER 528 (1K) 0 (0K) 528 (1K)
LASTDRIV 544 (1K) 0 (0K) 544 (1K)
INSTALL 160 (0K) 0 (0K) 160 (0K)
COMMAND 2,928 (3K) 0 (0K) 2,928 (3K)
SMARTDRV 29,024 (28K) 0 (0K) 29,024 (28K)
DOS-UP 224 (0K) 0 (0K) 224 (0K)
DOSDATA 5,296 (5K) 0 (0K) 5,296 (5K)
QDPMI 1,920 (2K) 0 (0K) 1,920 (2K)
CTMMSYS 10,368 (10K) 0 (0K) 10,368 (10K)
SETVER 480 (0K) 0 (0K) 480 (0K)
VIDE-CDD 5,088 (5K) 0 (0K) 5,088 (5K)
MOUSE 3,328 (3K) 0 (0K) 3,328 (3K)
SHCDX33F 6,352 (6K) 0 (0K) 6,352 (6K)
DOSKEY 3,968 (4K) 0 (0K) 3,968 (4K)
Free 705,552 (689K) 649,936 (635K) 55,616 (54K)

Memory Summary:

Type of Memory Total = Used + Free
---------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Conventional 655,360 5,424 649,936
Upper 4,294,158, 4,294,102, 55,616
Reserved 393,216 393,216 0
Extended (XMS) 16,537,472 3,364,736 13,172,736
---------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total memory 16,777,216 2,898,928 13,878,288
Total under 1 MB 4,294,813, 4,294,108, 705,552

Total Expanded (EMS) 15,990,784 (15,616K
Free Expanded (EMS) 13,172,736 (12,864K
Largest executable program size 649,920 (635K)
Largest free upper memory block 50,064 (49K)
MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

HP Z420 Workstation Intel Xeon E5-1620, 32GB, RADEON HD7850 2GB, SSD + HD, XP/7
ws90Ts2.gif

Reply 11 of 76, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I never used any 'fancy' memory manager. Only standard DOS and the included himem.sys and EMM386.EXE. Never had any software I couldn't run. So I never felt the need to even look into alternatives. Don't know anyone who used an alternative back in the day.
I think QEMM may have been popular in the early days, before DOS came with a standard option. But in those early days, us mortals could only afford 8088 machines anyway, so we had no use for any memory manager. When I upgraded from an 8088 to 386SX, it came with DOS 5.0, which included all the good stuff already.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 12 of 76, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
oeuvre wrote:
Here's a bit of a comparison of MS-DOS 6.22 + Memmaker and some other tweaks I've found oeuvre the years against QEMM 7.5 […]
Show full quote

Here's a bit of a comparison of MS-DOS 6.22 + Memmaker and some other tweaks I've found oeuvre the years against QEMM 7.5

System is emulated with 86Box but the hardware is as follows:

486DX2 66MHz
16MB RAM
Creative Sound Blaster 2.0
TSENG ET4000 W32p


Free 636,608 (622K) 630,864 (616K) 5,744 (6K)

Free 705,552 (689K) 649,936 (635K) 55,616 (54K)

Qemm is the superior of the two, there is no doubt about it.

The question was, why it is not so popular? (i.e.: who really needs 635K free conventional memory and who really have problems with around 620K free conventional memory, which can be achieved by the less capable memmaker) 🤣

Last edited by tayyare on 2018-10-24, 08:57. Edited 1 time in total.

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000

Reply 13 of 76, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The issue, for me, was that memmaker can do a good job with a fairly small amount of TSRs but once you start to load things like antivirus software and convenience tools like DOSKEY (who the hell can live without DOSKEY?) and other dos shell extensions, keyboard/character localization settings etc. the difference starts to widen, considerably.

There is also the fact that today we can easily find and use drivers for things like mice and optical drives that have incredibly small memory foot prints. However, I did not have access to CTMOUSE.EXE and VIDECDD.SYS back then; I can clearly remember that starting with CD-ROM support using OAK's drivers and the mouse driver in MS-DOS itself had a huge impact on free conventional memory.

My memory may be betraying me, but I remember it being very difficult to get 600K+ let alone 620K conventional memory with my system without resorting to QEMM.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 14 of 76, by kixs

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I only used himem and emm386 to get over 600K back in the days... I still use the same today. Only a few programs/games actually required more then 600K free - that I used.

Requests are also possible... /msg kixs

Reply 15 of 76, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

If memory serves, I had about 560 to 580KiB of free memory on my 286.
The "trick" was to threw out all the uneccessary stuff: SmartDrive, setver, mode con, ansi.sys, ega.sys, etc.
And yes, I had mscdex and a CD-ROM driver loaded. 😀

Scali wrote:

When I upgraded from an 8088 to 386SX, it came with DOS 5.0, which included all the good stuff already.

MS-DOS 5.0 was the coolest one of them all 🤣 : https://youtu.be/dmEvPZUdAVI
Seriously, though, DOS 5 was a fine piece. It was very compatible with DOS 3.x also (DOS 5/6 share the same kernal base).

"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//

Reply 16 of 76, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
tayyare wrote:

The question was, why it is not so popular? (i.e.: who really needs 635K free convenrional memory and who really have problems with around 620K free conventional memory, which can be achieved by the less capable memaker) 🤣

Memmaker does nothing but trying to rearrange lines in Config/Autoexec for optimal memory allocation. It still relies on EMM386 to provide the extra blocks.

No single DOS app needs 635K of RAM (not even 620K), but if you load many TSRs, then your overall free memory will be lower. QEMM seems to provide more overall memory blocks compared to EMM386, so you will be able to load more stuff and still have more RAM free.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 17 of 76, by tayyare

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
appiah4 wrote:

The issue, for me, was that memmaker can do a good job with a fairly small amount of TSRs but once you start to load things like antivirus software and convenience tools like DOSKEY (who the hell can live without DOSKEY?) and other dos shell extensions, keyboard/character localization settings etc. the difference starts to widen, considerably.

There is also the fact that today we can easily find and use drivers for things like mice and optical drives that have incredibly small memory foot prints. However, I did not have access to CTMOUSE.EXE and VIDECDD.SYS back then; I can clearly remember that starting with CD-ROM support using OAK's drivers and the mouse driver in MS-DOS itself had a huge impact on free conventional memory.

My memory may be betraying me, but I remember it being very difficult to get 600K+ let alone 620K conventional memory with my system without resorting to QEMM.

Doskey? What doskey? Who uses doskey instead of using ndos (shell replacement)? Smaller footprint, many usefull functions including "integrated doskey" 🤣

You are of course right about smaller footprint modern drivers but, there where much better ones available compared to Microstf's mouse.com (the one that came with my no name mouse in 1992 was about 10 KB) or Oak CD drivers (my Acer from 1995 was about 11 KB - I had my first CD driver in 1995).

Actually I understand (and mostly accept) what you are saying, but installing nothing but the essentials was a common practice before starting up demanding games (or badly written specialized engineering programs, etc. - which I needed to do a lot). This was why we had huge multi option startup files in the first place 😊 I clearly remember creating "mouse+cd", "mouse only", "cd only", "nothing" kind of menu options and even their XMS only or EMS only versions. Some games even came with utilities to create their own startup floppies.

Again, I was not a big time game player, so our mileage might vary.

GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4+512MB
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 PNP+32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
Gotek+CF Reader
MSDOS 6.22+Win 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000

Reply 18 of 76, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Jo22 wrote:

If memory serves, I had about 560 to 580KiB of free memory on my 286.
The "trick" was to threw out all the uneccessary stuff: SmartDrive, setver, mode con, ansi.sys, ega.sys, etc.
And yes, I had mscdex and a CD-ROM driver loaded. 😀

As an extension of that, there are multiple 'tricks'...
I had a total of 6 different configurations in my DOS boot menu. Some applications needed EMS memory, others couldn't run with v86... Some needed so much memory that I couldn't load the CD-ROM driver, etc.
But with these 6 configurations I could run anything I ever encountered.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 19 of 76, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Scali wrote:
As an extension of that, there are multiple 'tricks'... I had a total of 6 different configurations in my DOS boot menu. Some ap […]
Show full quote
Jo22 wrote:

If memory serves, I had about 560 to 580KiB of free memory on my 286.
The "trick" was to threw out all the uneccessary stuff: SmartDrive, setver, mode con, ansi.sys, ega.sys, etc.
And yes, I had mscdex and a CD-ROM driver loaded. 😀

As an extension of that, there are multiple 'tricks'...
I had a total of 6 different configurations in my DOS boot menu. Some applications needed EMS memory, others couldn't run with v86... Some needed so much memory that I couldn't load the CD-ROM driver, etc.
But with these 6 configurations I could run anything I ever encountered.

Wasn't the boot menu a thing that didn't exist before dos 6.22? Majority of my DOS life was spent with DOS 5.0 and 6.0, by the time DOS 6.22 came along I had moved on to OS/2 Warp 3..

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.