The funniest thing about it is that the stupid program links to the vogons forum as the (only?) reference to the question, and now since you posted about it, it will have lots more speculation to index, and now the circle is now complete. It got what it wants; more data.

Pretty sure MS-DOS 7/7.1 was the next version but it was really a puppet OS by that time having been integrated into Windows 98/98se, cant remember what version Win95 OSR2 used, only 95 rig I have runs 95 on top of 6.22.

I dont think there was officially any newer then 6.22, but Im pretty sure there was a version of 7.0 without windows 95 floating around in around 1994 that was on a few pirate cd's around that time.

And then there is Google's Bard, it starts well and... Humanity is safe. These things do not even make a good joke yet.

sneeker wrote on 2023-07-15, 14:25:

Im pretty sure there was a version of 7.0 without windows 95 floating around in around 1994 that was on a few pirate cd's around that time.

Around that time, there were at least three DOSes numbered as "7.0":
- IBM PC DOS 7.0
- Novell DOS 7
- possibly some beta of Windows 95 a.k.a. Chicago

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).

Trashbytes wrote on 2023-07-15, 14:05:

cant remember what version Win95 OSR2 used

Windows 95 OSR2 reports 7.1, with FAT32 support.

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.

This is pretty much as expected, part of me though was in hope someone might pop up and say, 'yes, I worked in the banking industry and we used MS-DOS 6.2x, and also still have copies of the disks'. However, thinking about it why would these industries need these special versions only past MS-DOS 6.22, if such special versions of the operating systems were required, would we not have seen different versions of MS-DOS 5 and earlier for example?

Maybe I should start a thread about a special version of MS-DOS used to operate stolen UFO technology that was also developed jointly with Apple to really get Bing in a spin.

or not if you want to continue to traffic this forum....

simon_e_hall wrote on 2023-07-16, 07:44:

This is pretty much as expected, part of me though was in hope someone might pop up and say, 'yes, I worked in the banking industry and we used MS-DOS 6.2x, and also still have copies of the disks'.

In a vintage computing/retro forum?
I'm not exactly sure how many ex-bankers are around here. 🤷‍♂️

Edit: What about confidentiality? Wouldn't it be a breach of confidentiality of some sort?
If you're in the banking business there are certain details that aren't meant to go public, I suppose.

Edit: I mean, there already was some fuss about the Win2000/DOS source code leaks from years ago (not going into detail here).
Without them, we wouldn't even know that certain companies had gotten access to such things.
These companies had to sign a non-disclosure agreement to get access to it.
Maybe something similar was needed for getting access to a copy of MS-DOS 6.23/6.24..? 🤷‍♂️

simon_e_hall wrote on 2023-07-16, 07:44:

However, thinking about it why would these industries need these special versions only past MS-DOS 6.22, if such special versions of the operating systems were required, would we not have seen different versions of MS-DOS 5 and earlier for example?

There were Russian versions of DOS which were used in military applications, power plants etc.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTS-DOS

Before DOS 5 (1990), DOS wasn't so powerful, I suppose?
It introduced things like HMA, EMM386, XMS to the majority of users first time m. And a graphical shell, too.
DOS 4 (v4.00, 1988/v4.01, 1989) wasn't much of a success, after all: At this point in time, DOS was to the edge.

In the 80s, the future of DOS was uncertain, too.
DOS 3.20/3.30 (1986/1987) was still doing okay, but DOS as a whole was expected to be replaced by OS/2 (v1.1 in 1988) soon.

MS-DOS 5 and DR-DOS (later Novell DOS) were breathing new life into DOS as a platform,
depending on how we look at it.

Edited.

There was also IBM PC DOS which split from MS-DOS after version 5, I think.

The first PC I seriously tinkered with was some 486 IBM Thinkpad running PC DOS 6.3, with EDIT/QBASIC replaced by that allegedly powerful but unintuitive-to-me E editor.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-07-16, 03:56:

People where officially being introduced to USB, DOS 7.1 and FAT32 with the release of Windows 98/98SE.

Similarly to how many people thought Vista was the first 64-bit Windows version, not knowing that x64 version of XP Pro existed, or that 32-bit versions continued to be released up to and including Windows 10.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-07-17, 12:32:

simon_e_hall wrote on 2023-07-16, 07:44:

This is pretty much as expected, part of me though was in hope someone might pop up and say, 'yes, I worked in the banking industry and we used MS-DOS 6.2x, and also still have copies of the disks'.

In a vintage computing/retro forum?
I'm not exactly sure how many ex-bankers are around here. 🤷‍♂️

/me waves
I did a brief stint at a bank in southwest of Germany in the second half of the 90ies. But they used OS/2 and office on Windows 3.11 at the time (running under OS/2) in their branches and Windows 95 at the headquarter offices. Their banking software all ran under OS/2.

Latest MS-DOS 8.0 we got with WinME, i think. 😀
REMOVED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRIZ7R2H_8g

sneeker wrote on 2023-07-15, 14:25:

I dont think there was officially any newer then 6.22, but Im pretty sure there was a version of 7.0 without windows 95 floating around in around 1994 that was on a few pirate cd's around that time.

Any "standalone" DOS 7.x was most probably an unofficial/pirated distro made out of specific Windows 9x files (and perhaps some extras, too).
This isn't very hard to do, actually, but there's no installer so you need to know how to install DOS manually (using fdisk/format/sys) or remove Windows leaving only DOS having installed Windows 9x.

There's little point in doing so with DOS 7.0 (unless you care about specific localization not available on 6.22), but on DOS 7.1 you get FAT32 support which is an important feature.

Note that Windows 95A is DOS 7.0 while Windows 95B, 98 and 98 SE are all DOS 7.1 even though there are minor differences between them (like the splash logo or copyright/version texts, or bugfixes).

Azarien wrote on 2023-07-17, 22:40:

Any "standalone" DOS 7.x was most probably an unofficial/pirated distro made out of specific Windows 9x files (and perhaps some extras, too).

I believe even the name "DOS 7.x" is not official, is it? Has it been used anywhere in official MSFT documentation, or was it just derived by the DOS version that it reports?

dr_st wrote on 2023-07-18, 05:33:

I believe even the name "DOS 7.x" is not official, is it? Has it been used anywhere in official MSFT documentation, or was it just derived by the DOS version that it reports?

It's possible that the DOS from some beta versions of Windows 95 identified itself as "DOS Version 7.00".
But it might as well be a fake...
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39495

Dominus wrote on 2023-07-17, 15:37:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-07-17, 12:32:

simon_e_hall wrote on 2023-07-16, 07:44:

This is pretty much as expected, part of me though was in hope someone might pop up and say, 'yes, I worked in the banking industry and we used MS-DOS 6.2x, and also still have copies of the disks'.

In a vintage computing/retro forum?
I'm not exactly sure how many ex-bankers are around here. 🤷‍♂️

/me waves
I did a brief stint at a bank in southwest of Germany in the second half of the 90ies. But they used OS/2 and office on Windows 3.11 at the time (running under OS/2) in their branches and Windows 95 at the headquarter offices. Their banking software all ran under OS/2.

I forgot that OS/2 was common in the banking world, another nail in the coffin for this possible myth?

IBM had DOS 6.3. And DR-DOS had 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05. And maybe you have a mandela effect. 😉