dr_st wrote:
Why bother with a dual-boot of DOS and W95, especially on a stinky 4GB CF card? Just boot W95 with BootGUI=0.
I know that's a rhetorical question, but the OP's desire makes sense to me.
See, when Windows 9x was relevant, I was just thinking like you guys.
I had been focusing on Windows 9x and DOS 7 was okay for casually running some DOS programs.
Because, DOS at the time, was "the dark side" and mainly used for hackery and demanding, bare-metal stuff (DOS-based emulators, some games).
At the time, DOS 7 was good enough for that. It could even run vanilla Windows 3.1x (don't mean WfW).
What was left behind, though, were all the classic MS-DOS 5/6 utilities.
Which was okay, because I didn't aim for a proper DOS experience. DOS was a tool at the time, not something to feel nostalgic for.
And that's the difference to today. DOS is history, with the exception for a few niche things.
So there's a desire to have a "complete" and authentic DOS experience. MS-DOS 6.2x in short (or PC-DOS and DR DOS, maybe).
By using MS-DOS 6.x, someone can improve the DOS skills and remember how to do things "properly".
The way it was been done, the way it has been teached in IT class and by books.
I think that's the deeper meaning why people want to keep things separate.
It's less about functionality, but about the experience.
It's the same basic principle why people favor cheap 80s/90s clone consoles over modern FPGA implementations or emulator boxes.
"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//