Nope, not baiting - honest! I was just curious.
I think for me the "magical time" for me was the 90s when I was in graduate school. Yes I did have DOS for a while. But the machine that opened up more doors for me than any other was a P166mmx running windows 95. So the P3650 I have is largely a re-creation of that machine - mostly still have the same software I was using back then.
I just don't have the space for storing so many machines.

I don't see a good reason to use pure DOS. It's easier to edit stuff in Win9x environment and just load in DOS mode afterwards. But I don't usually use anything below Pentium.

I've always found it easier to set things up in pure DOS. I suppose it comes down to what one is used to.

For me, even Windows 9x machines are pure DOS - the first thing to do after installation is "BootGUI=0" and "Logo=0".

ncmark wrote on 2025-09-25, 09:33:

Nope, not baiting - honest! I was just curious.

You ain't wearing a robe and have 2 20-faces die and proclaiming yourself as the "Prophet of Si"?
With a d100 for percentiles?
I'm casting a reveal magic on you! 🤣

ncmark wrote on 2025-09-25, 09:33:

I think for me the "magical time" for me was the 90s when I was in graduate school. Yes I did have DOS for a while. But the machine that opened up more doors for me than any other was a P166mmx running windows 95. So the P3650 I have is largely a re-creation of that machine - mostly still have the same software I was using back then.
I just don't have the space for storing so many machines.

I never had a XT, but my first PC was the Amstrad PC1512, then 1640.
Then 286s starting from the Compaq 286 (the one heavy as death).

Today I have a few with DOS, mainly laptops for ease of use (way easier to take out and play).
Mainly for fun and nostalgia, as other users pointed out, it's not uncommon to have games just work on 98 and 2K + XP.

Powering on a machine and hear the sounds of HD, FD... it's just so nice 😀

BTW, this thread unmasks the old ones here. 🤣

Grzyb wrote on 2025-09-25, 10:36:

For me, even Windows 9x machines are pure DOS - the first thing to do after installation is "BootGUI=0" and "Logo=0".

Same. Even on my 386SX/20.

I use DOS+win3.1 even on the pentium 3

I dont found win9x funny at all

Grzyb wrote on 2025-09-25, 10:36:

For me, even Windows 9x machines are pure DOS - the first thing to do after installation is "BootGUI=0" and "Logo=0".

Another one here. If I have enough Space, I also going for dual- or Triple-Boot with a freedos Partition at first.

If we run Windows 3.x on the system, does it still count as a "pure" DOS system?

I would think so. Windows 3.x is a shell that sits on top of DOS, it's not really a stand alone OS.

I agree . Win 3.x runs under and needs DOS .. unlike 95 which appears (at times) to load undet DOS, but takes over and doesn't use DOS after

If that's the case, then half my collection are pure DOS systems.

Pure DOS machines are my favorite by a mile!! Even my Pentium 166 is a DOS 6.22 system...

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-09-25, 13:26:

I would think so. Windows 3.x is a shell that sits on top of DOS, it's not really a stand alone OS.

For Windows 3.0 in Real-Mode I think that's right,
even though it has OS like features such as its own API and own executable format (NE)..

The lines get blurred with Windows for Workgroups, though, I think.
It's sort of a Network Operating System (NOS), at very least.
It can both use and provide resources to a network.

Once both FastDisk/32-Bit Disk Access (HDD driver) and 32-Bit File Access (HDD cache) are loaded, WfW becomes self-reliant.
It can handle DOS API calls (int21h) and BIOS HDD routines (int13h) all alone now.

On top of that, it moves DOS into an VM that basically runs on top of WfW.

In additon, Windows 3.1x Protected-Mode kernal can run independently, without DOS, as Wabi for Unix/Linux proves..

Windows 3.x is very weird in comparison to other systems.. 😅

Many times I've seen Windows 9x to use real-mode DOS drivers and TSRs - for devices without native Windows drivers, like certain proprietary CD-ROM drive, Arcnet and other old LAN adapters, NetDrive...

So it's still just an overlay for DOS.
It's only different from Windows 3.x in the DOS being artificially hidden - due to marketing policy, not for any technical reasons.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-25, 18:17:

... The lines get blurred with Windows for Workgroups, though, I think.
It's sort of a Network Operating System (NOS), at very least.
It can both use and provide resources to a network. ...

Back in the day, I pulled the network components from WFW ... they will/do run independently
under DOS (client only - no server as native DOS doens't have multitasking support needed by WFW
server - DOS<>Windows line is quite blurry in WFW.

DaveDDS wrote on 2025-09-25, 23:09:

Back in the day, I pulled the network components from WFW ... they will/do run independently under DOS (client only - no server […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-25, 18:17:

... The lines get blurred with Windows for Workgroups, though, I think.
It's sort of a Network Operating System (NOS), at very least.
It can both use and provide resources to a network. ...

Back in the day, I pulled the network components from WFW ... they will/do run independently
under DOS (client only - no server as native DOS doens't have multitasking support needed by WFW
server - DOS<>Windows line is quite blurry in WFW.

Hi! That sounds cool! 😎
I read about similar things, but have no experience of my own so far! 😅
I suppose it's related to the Windows Protected-Mode extender somehow.
On the Japanese PC-98 platform, the Windows 3 extender was used as some sort of EMM386/DPMI alternative, I vaguely remember.

I read about the first one here: http://www.win31.de/etips.htm
The PC-98 thing here: https://virtuallyfun.com/2016/06/21/ms-dos-5-0-dpmi/

Edit:

Grzyb wrote on 2025-09-25, 20:08:

Many times I've seen Windows 9x to use real-mode DOS drivers and TSRs - for devices without native Windows drivers, like certain proprietary CD-ROM drive, Arcnet and other old LAN adapters, NetDrive...

So it's still just an overlay for DOS.
It's only different from Windows 3.x in the DOS being artificially hidden - due to marketing policy, not for any technical reasons.

Windows 9x is very interesting and fascinating in a sick kind of way, IMHO!
It's a walking V86 Machine Monitor! The very heart of Windows 9x is the VMM, in fact!

What it does after booting is moving DOS in a VM and then running DOS on top of itself.
Or side by side with itself, maybe. Depends on point of view.

So whenever a DOS driver or BIOS call is needed, it asks its buddy, the DOSVM to do it.

In principle, it's comparable to how EMM386 works.
EMM386 and VMM are both hypervisors that use V86 sub mode of Protected-Mode.
Except that EMM386 directly interacts with DOS, so they both work as an unity.

The Windows 9x VMM is much more advanced and has access to Windows kernal, VXDs and so on.

Speaking under correction, though. I'm just an user! 😅

DaveDDS wrote on 2025-09-25, 23:09:

Back in the day, I pulled the network components from WFW ... they will/do run independently under DOS (client only - no server […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-25, 18:17:

... The lines get blurred with Windows for Workgroups, though, I think.
It's sort of a Network Operating System (NOS), at very least.
It can both use and provide resources to a network. ...

Back in the day, I pulled the network components from WFW ... they will/do run independently
under DOS (client only - no server as native DOS doens't have multitasking support needed by WFW
server - DOS<>Windows line is quite blurry in WFW.

Yes, WfW just has a client for DOS.
It is not like Personal Netware from Novell DOS which allows file serving under DOS.

I won't call WfW a NOS.
A classic NOS is Novell Netware (full version).

Disruptor wrote on 2025-09-25, 23:20:

I won't call WfW a NOS.
A classic NOS is Novell Netware (full version).

You don't have to, but I think it has certain character traits of it.
It also was used as a post office (LAN mail server) in small and medium sized offices.

WfW was also a product of its own, somewhere between Windows 3.1 and NT 3.1.
Like a third kind of Windows, if we will. It wasn't just another Windows 3.1.
It had technology backported from Chicago (Win95), but was closer to NT 3.1 in terms of professionalism.

Windows 3.1 and 95 were consumer versions of Windows, whereas WfW was semi-professional maybe.
That's why Windows NT CDs have copies of Windows for Workgroups included, but no Windows 95, I guess.

About Netware. The classic Novell Netware also started from DOS and then switched to its own OS kernal.

If memory serves, it had two operation modes, actually.
In one, the Novell Netware ran exklusively and in the other one the server computer was still usable as DOS machine same time.

I'm just a layman here, though. 😅
There were different versions of Novell, I vaguely remember.
In the 80s, there was an 286 and 386 version, for example.

And in late 90s, there was the last DOS release that caused compatibility issues somehow?
I vaguely remember this, because of my copy of Novell DOS 7.
It supported two "generations" of Novell Netware (I don’t mean Netware Lite or Personal Netware).

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-25, 23:18:

Hi! That sounds cool! ...

Ok, this is going back a ways. Digging out an old backup of my DOS system,
I see that I had placed the networking components in C:\NET which contains:

12019-12-09   7:11 Pm                  0 CONNECT.DAT
22012-06-09   9:56 Am                606 DAVE.PWL
31993-11-01  10:11 Am              4,548 IFSHLP.SYS
41993-11-01  10:11 Am              4,464 NDISHLP.SYS
51993-11-01   3:11 Am             13,838 NE2000.DOS
61996-08-09  12:00 Am            450,694 NET.EXE
71993-11-01   3:11 Am             75,697 NET.MSG
81993-11-01  10:11 Am            122,333 NETH.MSG
91993-11-01  10:11 Am             21,940 PROTMAN.DOS
101993-11-01  10:11 Am             13,782 PROTMAN.EXE
112012-06-09   9:53 Am                157 PROTOCOL.INI
122012-06-09   9:45 Am                622 SHARES.PWL
132012-06-09   9:56 Am                218 SYSTEM.INI
141996-03-21  10:06 Am                840 WFWSYS.CFG

SYSTEM.INI contains:

1[Network]
2reconnect=no
3UserName=DAVE
4Workgroup=WORKGROUP
5
6[network drivers]
7netcard=ne2000.dos
8transport=ndishlp.sys,*netbeui
9devdir=C:\net
10
11[Password Lists]
12*Shares=C:\NET\Shares.PWL
13DAVE=C:\NET\DAVE.PWL

C:\CONFIG.SYS contains (among other things):

1DEVICE=C:\dos\HIMEM.SYS /TESTMEM:OFF
2DEVICE=C:\dos\EMM386.EXE NOEMS
3DEVICEHIGH=C:\net\IFSHLP.SYS

C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT contains (among other things):

1rem C:\net\net start

Hopefully this will give you enough to get it working... I really haven't used
this setup in a long time.

Dave