Well, DOSSHELL was introduced in 1988 with MS-DOS 4.0 and Windows (2.x) wasn't very popular at that point. And surely Microsoft wanted people to buy Windows, so they couldn't include a "good" GUI with MS-DOS lest they cannibalize their own sales. As you've noticed, DOSSHELL is fairly useless for the most part. If you were serious about effective file management you probably had NC.

I'm guessing DOSSHELL was probably just a "user friendly" selling point so MS-DOS wouldn't seem so antiquated in these early heydays of the GUI. People had started buying mice, maybe having a use for them in DOS would convince them to upgrade from DOS 3.3 😀

I'm sure some companies who were running only DOS software with not-so-knowledgeable users would do stuff like boot into DOSSHELL via AUTOEXEC.BAT. It would provide some point'n'click ease of use while saving the cost of an expensive and superfluous Windows license.

Lazy people would swear by dosshell as the best since sliced bread. Everyone else that knew how to use dos, would never use it.

computergeek92 wrote:

Was DOS Shell considered an alternative to pairing DOS with Windows back in the day?

Is rollerblading considered an alternative to bicycling? Is coffee considered an alternative to tea?

brostenen wrote:

Everyone else that knew how to use dos, would never use it.

There are certain cases where there's just no substitute for even a bare-minimum GUI. When you want to pick out a small selection of files from a much larger list, in particular.

Jorpho wrote:

There are certain cases where there's just no substitute for even a bare-minimum GUI. When you want to pick out a small selection of files from a much larger list, in particular.

True.... I was referring to those that preached dosshell 100% of the time, back in the days.
There are some rare cases were it's good to have a GUI. NC comes to mind as superior to Dosshell.
If you want to copy a directory containing sub directories, then NC is the choice to go to.

Most of the times, bare dos UI is sufficient enough.

I used it back in the days, when I was using dos as a wee lad. The fact it came with dos made it much more accessible to a semi computer illiterate guy than some other software you would have to obtain elsewhere.

Used CLI most of the time but when I needed a GUI I used PCShell in PC Tools

File manager probably got it's look from DOSShell. May be a question you should ask of Raymond Chen.

DOSSHELL was hugely useful. It was a pretty poor file manager but an excellent app launcher with task switching if you disabled the file tree windows.

When switching tasks it would create a memory image on disk that you could look through and even modify, and then load the altered snapshot back into RAM. Basically a live debugger for pretty much any app.

I used it extensively to cheat in games alongside a hex editor.

keenerb wrote:

DOSSHELL was hugely useful. It was a pretty poor file manager but an excellent app launcher with task switching if you disabled the file tree windows.

When switching tasks it would create a memory image on disk that you could look through and even modify, and then load the altered snapshot back into RAM. Basically a live debugger for pretty much any app.

I used it extensively to cheat in games alongside a hex editor.

Like a Ram drive? If so, is it dynamic as on the Amiga?

brostenen wrote:

keenerb wrote:

DOSSHELL was hugely useful. It was a pretty poor file manager but an excellent app launcher with task switching if you disabled the file tree windows.

When switching tasks it would create a memory image on disk that you could look through and even modify, and then load the altered snapshot back into RAM. Basically a live debugger for pretty much any app.

I used it extensively to cheat in games alongside a hex editor.

Like a Ram drive? If so, is it dynamic as on the Amiga?

No, not really like a ram drive. Maybe more like Windows hibernate file.

If you enable the task switching feature, you can launch an application and then hit CTRL-ESC(?) to return to DOS Shell. The memory used by the application you were using is written to a temporary file on disk. You can launch more apps and they're all treated similarly, only one is in RAM, the rest are paged out to disk.

I would launch Champions of Krynn, for example, and then swap back to DOS Shell and then load a hex editor. In the hex editor I'd modify the CoK saved memory on-disk and change my grid location or health or gold or whatever. Then I'd switch back to the game and DOS Shell would reload the saved memory contents (including my modifications) and viola I'd be in a new location or my ranger would be fully healed or my mage would have all his spells re-learned.

There were other tools that could let you edit memory more easily, but this is what I had so this is what I used...

All I would need DOS Shell is for transferring files across drives. Can't it do that well?

It should work, but Norton Commander is really just the best for file management...

computergeek92 wrote:

All I would need DOS Shell is for transferring files across drives. Can't it do that well?

It can do it just as well as anything else. If you're trying to do some particular file transfer that won't work in DOS for some reason, then DOS Shell will not help.

I suppose it might be interesting to see if DOS Shell is faster when compared to XCOPY.

Found something. Thought it would fit to this thread's topic:
The DOS 4.0 Shell Mouse Mystery

Jo22 wrote:

Found something. Thought it would fit to this thread's topic:
The DOS 4.0 Shell Mouse Mystery

It's an interesting curiosity, but I doubt anyone here has ever touched DOS 4.0 and probably no one ever will.

The post at http://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos/dos-4-0/ is slightly more relevant.

New User Interface […]
Show full quote

New User Interface

DOS 4.0 was part of the push towards OS/2 and graphical user interfaces. The command line interface was officially obsoleted by the new full-screen DOS Shell, compliant with the new CUA (Common User Access) guidelines and somewhat similar to the (upcoming) OS/2 File Manager. The DOS Shell sported menus, dialogs, push buttons, scroll bars, and on-line help.

The DOS Shell was customizable and users could add their own menu entries to easily launch arbitrary programs and utilities. The Shell could be controlled either by a mouse or by a keyboard. There was naturally an easy way to “shell out” to the traditional DOS command prompt.

A File System utility was a prominent part of the DOS Shell. This presented the directory structure of a disk in the classic tree form, allowing easy navigation. The File System part of the DOS Shell was very similar to the File System applet in OS/2’s Presentation Manager (released a few months after DOS 4.0).

The DOS Shell was met with a mixed reception. Some users liked it, as it made the PC more accessible to beginners. Others complained that the DOS Shell was incompatible with popular TSRs—often because the TSRs could not correctly handle applications running in graphics mode. The solution was forcing the DOS Shell to use text mode.

The DOS Shell itself was of course entirely optional and users who found no need for it were not forced to use the shell.

The first PC I ever owned came with MS-DOS 4.0.(Packard Bell 286 12mhz) Considering the age of people here it's doubtful I'm the only one.

DOSShell has one crippling flaw as a file manager, in my recollection.

It scans your entire hard drive by default, and if you have a larger drive on a slower system it can take several minutes for it to completely load.

I don't remember whether Norton Commander had that problem, or if that could be disabled in dosshell?

keenerb wrote:

No, not really like a ram drive. Maybe more like Windows hibernate file. […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote:

keenerb wrote:

DOSSHELL was hugely useful. It was a pretty poor file manager but an excellent app launcher with task switching if you disabled the file tree windows.

When switching tasks it would create a memory image on disk that you could look through and even modify, and then load the altered snapshot back into RAM. Basically a live debugger for pretty much any app.

I used it extensively to cheat in games alongside a hex editor.

Like a Ram drive? If so, is it dynamic as on the Amiga?

No, not really like a ram drive. Maybe more like Windows hibernate file.

If you enable the task switching feature, you can launch an application and then hit CTRL-ESC(?) to return to DOS Shell. The memory used by the application you were using is written to a temporary file on disk. You can launch more apps and they're all treated similarly, only one is in RAM, the rest are paged out to disk.

I would launch Champions of Krynn, for example, and then swap back to DOS Shell and then load a hex editor. In the hex editor I'd modify the CoK saved memory on-disk and change my grid location or health or gold or whatever. Then I'd switch back to the game and DOS Shell would reload the saved memory contents (including my modifications) and viola I'd be in a new location or my ranger would be fully healed or my mage would have all his spells re-learned.

There were other tools that could let you edit memory more easily, but this is what I had so this is what I used...

This is what I read from all this:

Blah blah blah, I'm a no good cheater, blah blah. 🤣

DosFreak wrote:

The first PC I ever owned came with MS-DOS 4.0.(Packard Bell 286 12mhz) Considering the age of people here it's doubtful I'm the only one.

I'm not thinking age; I'm sure there are plenty of people here who used some flavor of DOS 3.x or earlier. I'm thinking MS-DOS 4 just wasn't nearly as widely adopted as subsequent or previous versions, as per the article.

Just for the record... DOSshell capability was powered by Windows/286 DOSX Extended DOS core. As such, there are some interesting bugs which affected Windows/286, them also affected DOSshell task manager 😜

The only other file manager product who offered similar Task Switching capability was Digital Research ViewMAX, using the same TaskMAX technology which was to be used by Apple's "StarTrek" Project [Mac System7 on DOS/x86], project who never came to fruition.