Kalle wrote on 2025-02-28, 08:41:

Windows 10/11. At the moment I don't even know what I will do once I can't use Windows 7 anymore.

I will never come beyond Windows 8.1,even if the choice will be between give up internet or return to the Windows 10's/11's hell,I still did not fixed all damages caused by it,even I fired it years ago,I still find often some SD card or flash drive,where Windows 10 shrinked its partition, while it was here,never again.
Windows 7 is last real Windows.
Windows 8.1 is last usable & withstandable Windows successor.
Windows 10+ is simply a malware-a boot-virus,as it can boot by itself.
In worst case,if I would desperately need internet in the age,no antivirus will run on Windows 8.1 nor earlier,in this worst case I will maybe learn to use a Linux,but if I will not so desperately need internet,maybe I will employ printer for sending mails,if there still will be some post office,use real shops instead of eshops,again,if there will be some @ that time,or give it up entirely & pay more time to my model railroad,which needs maintenance same as my old good PCs,so I will reallocate the internet time to something better...But sure,never ever give up to MalWindows 10+.

gerry wrote on 2025-02-28, 08:56:

yes, that was a design choice for an imagined future when windows phones were around. win 10 may have its downsides but in us […]
Show full quote

chinny22 wrote on 2025-02-28, 00:29:

Windows 8 and those whole charms bar thing.

yes, that was a design choice for an imagined future when windows phones were around. win 10 may have its downsides but in use its a bit more like win 7 again, just slower and less tidy with more interruptions.

i'd add the initial release of win 95 which was cool looking at the time and seemed good but could be flaky and unreliable and become frustrating. win 95 became much better by win95b / osr2, then it eventually became better still (win98se)

i actually dont really like Mac OS all that much - it may be just that i dont use it much so it could just be that

MalWindows 10 has only downsides.

StriderTR wrote on 2025-02-28, 09:34:

I'm still on 10 and will be for a long time yet probably.

U have iron nerves...Or U absolved a training for controlling emotions on Vulcan...I should attend it too.
Live long & prosper.

For cellphone OS, it's IOS. A walled garden with way too high walls. The EU is constantly poking them to open up a little, but I believe at a certain point they just give up on the EU market rather than complying.

For desktop and notebooks, I never used MacOS so that leaves me with whatever the most recent Windows is. Just more enshittification with every new version after 7.

Grzyb wrote on 2025-02-28, 10:04:

Well, I never had to use that - but if I did, safe bet I would hate it forever! […]
Show full quote

StriderTR wrote on 2025-02-28, 09:34:

I actually liked the classic Mac OS

Well, I never had to use that - but if I did, safe bet I would hate it forever!

Really, an OS without CLI?
THE UTTER ABOMINATION! 😜

It was the 80's, I was young and impressionable. 😜

I just remember thinking it was so cool at the time. I click, it happens. haha

StriderTR wrote on 2025-02-28, 18:47:

Grzyb wrote on 2025-02-28, 10:04:

Well, I never had to use that - but if I did, safe bet I would hate it forever! […]
Show full quote

StriderTR wrote on 2025-02-28, 09:34:

I actually liked the classic Mac OS

Well, I never had to use that - but if I did, safe bet I would hate it forever!

Really, an OS without CLI?
THE UTTER ABOMINATION! 😜

It was the 80's, I was young and impressionable. 😜

I just remember thinking it was so cool at the time. I click, it happens. haha

Sabina_16bit. wrote on 2025-02-28, 14:54:

StriderTR wrote on 2025-02-28, 09:34:

I'm still on 10 and will be for a long time yet probably.

U have iron nerves...Or U absolved a training for controlling emotions on Vulcan...I should attend it too.
Live long & prosper.

Haha. Shockingly enough, Win 10 and been very "cooperative" for me. I rarely have any real issues or problems.

I really didn't want to go to Win 10. I was happy on Win 7, but eventually I ran into software requirements that forced the move. There was NO way I was going to touch Win 8, so I stuck around on 7 for quite some time. The same will happen with 10, I'll move on only when forced.

But how U forced Win.10 to be cooperative?
By being offline?
Or by a mind melt?

Sabina_16bit. wrote on 2025-02-28, 20:33:

But how U forced Win.10 to be cooperative?
By being offline?
Or by a mind melt?

I just give it the "death stare" every so often. Keeps it in line! 😜

It's obvious: most people have accepted software calling home, and performing unwanted operations, as the "new normal"...

Ooooh, this is fun 😀

Worst 64bit OS/Worst Windows/Worst 64bit Windows:
Windows 8 — truly incoherent mess

Worst 32bit OS/Worst 32bit Windows:
Windows XP RTM — at least that was my experience from back of the day, the thing just loved becoming incredibly slow and unresponsive after a couple of months, requiring a fresh reinstall. Probably not completely fair, pretty much every Windows became better with updates. But I do remember switching to 2KSP4 in the early years of XP

Worst 16bit OS/Worst 16bit Windows/Worst DOS:

It's a toss between Windows 3.x and DOS 3.x

I like how Win3 looks, but I really feel like they should've done an OSR update, including all the updates (TCP/IP32b, Win32s, Video, 32-bit disk drivers, etc). Setting up Win 3.x takes too much time, and a lot can go wrong. Now obviously they were focused on Win95, but major Win 3.x apps still came out in 1997, so maybe just do one last update then, for those that really couldn't upgrade? After all, Windows 98 didn't stop Win95 OSR 2.x.

Besides it's the only version of Windows that would regularly crash on me — the handling of memory just doesn't seem that great. As a result, Win95 is a much better way of running Win3.x software. All in all the experience of actually trying to do something in Win3.x really gave me a whole new appreciation of Win95.

DOS 3.x is probably unfair, but it's just way too spartan for me. My experience is based on the Tandy 1000 version, so might not apply to other versions. There is no actual installer (you need to do everything by hand), and it has edlin instead of edit. No fdisk yet either, so it really helped that I had a somewhat fancy disk controller that could split a 42MB hard drive in two fake virtual disks.

Now again, this is all unfair, but if I can, I try to stick to later DOS versions.

Hot take, but I actually really like Windows ME. I think for the hardware you'd typically run it on, no DOS mode issue is overblown, but you get meaningful quality of life improvements, like faster boot time and faster network stack (the difference with Win98 has been 1.5-2x in my case).

Worst GUI:
Whenever Linux tries to imitate iOS/Mac (GNOME/Unity). And I use Mac as my daily driver, but all my other machines run Debian. My living room PC is running Debian testing with KDE.

I do think KDE these days is just plain better than Windows, and I wish more distros used it as default to give it a bigger user base and help polish some rough edges quicker.

jheronimus wrote on 2025-03-01, 09:11:

DOS 3.x is probably unfair, but it's just way too spartan for me. My experience is based on the Tandy 1000 version, so might not apply to other versions.

It's VERY unfair - it was 1984-1988, all software was spartan back then.

There is no actual installer (you need to do everything by hand)

Wrong - SELECT.COM was the installer, at least in the IBM PC DOS and generic MS-DOS.

and it has edlin instead of edit

True, but not much of a problem - Norton Commander was a must anyway.

No fdisk yet either, so it really helped that I had a somewhat fancy disk controller that could split a 42MB hard drive in two fake virtual disks.

Wrong - there definitely was FDISK.COM.
And with DOS 3.31, it wasn't even necessary to split large HDDs - the partition size limit was 512 MB.

Overall, DOS 3.30 was very successful - and still remains a good choice for XT machines.
The DOS API was already pretty much complete - hard to find a program refusing to run in 3.30.
It was also the first version to support 1.44 MB floppies.
No support for RAM beyond the 640 KB - other than RAMdisk - but XTs are pretty much limited to 640 KB anyway.

The only real limitation in 3.30 is the 32 MB of partition size - not a real problem back in the era, today often a big problem.
Solved in 3.31 - unfortunately, this version was only available via few OEMs.
No IBM PC DOS 3.31, no generic MS-DOS 3.31.
But there's probably nothing to stop using the OEM versions on generic hardware - I tried it for a short time, and didn't find any problems.

DOS 4.x was buggy - I think both IBM and Microsoft variants.

DOS 5.0 was successful again - but that's already overkill for XT hardware.

jheronimus wrote on 2025-03-01, 09:11:

DOS 3.x is probably unfair, but it's just way too spartan for me. My experience is based on the Tandy 1000 version, so might not apply to other versions.

You have to try out DOS 4.01 then! It's very, err, voluminous! 😁

Grzyb wrote on 2025-03-01, 10:33:

Overall, DOS 3.30 was very successful - and still remains a good choice for XT machines.
The DOS API was already pretty much complete - hard to find a program refusing to run in 3.30.
It was also the first version to support 1.44 MB floppies.

+1

What I like about this is that PC-DOS 3.30 was released before MS-DOS 3.3, which was unusual.
PC-DOS 3.30 also had a cute manual. Overall, it seems that this release was a bit special somehow.
The IBM people in charge apparently did invest some extra work into it.

Grzyb wrote on 2025-03-01, 10:33:

No support for RAM beyond the 640 KB - other than RAMdisk - but XTs are pretty much limited to 640 KB anyway.

Weeeell.. Yesn't. 704 KB of conventional RAM wasn't unheard of, I believe.
8088 laptops, MS-DOS compatibles (BBC Master 512) and MS-DOS emulators (PC-Ditto) often had it by default.

There's even an IBM PC 5150/5160 hack from the 80s (1985?) that made it into BBSes.
Re: 80x86/Vxx PC emulators with x87, EMS, UMBs and no artificial 640KiB limit ?

Utilities such as 704K did update BIOS, caused a reset and made DOS see 704KB on second boot-up.
Re: 80x86/Vxx PC emulators with x87, EMS, UMBs and no artificial 640KiB limit ?

If the PC merely had a CGA card, 736KB were possible, even.
If an MDA or Hercules card was installed, just 704KB. With both CGA/Hercules, too.

Also, use of UMBs in PC/XTs dates back to 1987, at the very least.
There's an article in a magazine that tells the story.
Re: 80x86/Vxx PC emulators with x87, EMS, UMBs and no artificial 640KiB limit ?

That being said, upgrading to 704KB or having UMBs seems overkill on an XT at first.
But there's one thing to consider: It has no HMA like ATs and PS/2s have.
So there are 64KB of RAM "missing".

While this is no problem on an PC/XT if booting off a floppy as if it was 1984,
it's becoming an issue really quick soon once device drivers come into play.

A mouse driver here, some networking software there. A keyboard driver, too. Maybe HDD cache or a floppy BIOS.. Ansi.sys, ega.sys and graphics.com..

Then the free memory goes down to 500 KB or less and many programs or games refuse to start.

Grzyb wrote on 2025-03-01, 10:33:

The only real limitation in 3.30 is the 32 MB of partition size - not a real problem back in the era, today often a big problem. […]
Show full quote

The only real limitation in 3.30 is the 32 MB of partition size - not a real problem back in the era, today often a big problem.
Solved in 3.31 - unfortunately, this version was only available via few OEMs.
No IBM PC DOS 3.31, no generic MS-DOS 3.31.
But there's probably nothing to stop using the OEM versions on generic hardware - I tried it for a short time, and didn't find any problems.

Compaq DOS 3.31 and DR DOS 3.31 did support up to 512MB partitions, I think.
PC-MOS/386 in 1987-1990 had a similar support for its own MOS partition type, I vaguely remember (it could run on 16-Bit PCs too).

Grzyb wrote on 2025-03-01, 10:33:

DOS 5.0 was successful again - but that's already overkill for XT hardware.

It was released in 1990, which on paper was admittedly very late for a 1981 PC.
On other hand, there had been PC/XT based palmtop PCs with MS-DOS 5 in ROM. Such as HP 100XL or Poqet PC.

Edit: I have to correct myself here! DR DOS 5 May be from 1990, but MS-DOS is from 1991.

Personally, I think that MS-DOS 5 on an PC/XT is fine considering that DOS 4 was such a train wreck.
So "let's five be straight" this time and let it pass. 😀
It's the next best alternative after 3.3x, after all.

I mean, even MS-DOS 6.x and DR DOS 7.03/Novell DOS can also be used from a purely technical point of view.
They have useful tools for hard disk maintenance (defrag, scandisk, doublespace) or file transfer (filelink, interlnk, personal netware).
And all those standard programs some batch files might use.

Users who had gotten an old PC/XT as a gift in early 90s surely had upgraded to MS-DOS 5/6 sooner or later. Because it was free and had no snr.
About anyone in the neighborhood could provide a bootable start-up disk (system disk) of latest MS-DOS. That's at least how I remember it.

Oh by the way, never owned a 8bit home computer when I was a kid. And tried to use few of them few times. And say that BASIC is my most hated OS. 😂

Windows 10 became worst with every updates(& U can avoid them only by being offline).
For me a modern MoBo is spartan:no IDE,no FDC,no COM,no LPT,no PS/2,no VGA...only SATA & USB & HDMI...this is spartan!
I am a regular user of MS-DOS 3.30 & it HAS Fdisk,btw less buggy than that of DOS 6.22.
Then the installing is so easy,it fits on a single floppy!So it is only:
Format C: /s.
Copy A: C: & done.
I use it on all my 286 machines & on 1 buggy Socket 7 MoBo with K5,which refuses to boot anything else,but DOS 3.30,yes even DOS 6.x will not boot on it,I just tried DOS 3.30 with not much hope,but it surprised me & run,thus came up my highest DOS 3.30 setup:
CPU: AMD K5 @ 100MHz,
RAM: 8MB SIMM72,
HDD: 130MB IDE 3.5",
CD-ROM.
I used the Himem.sys ,EMM386.exe & MSCDEX from DOS 6.22 & all those worx without problem on DOS 3.30,yes,I have pretty much logical drives here,but everything worx & the only game,which does not run properly & is not playable on DOS 3.30 ,is Secret Agent,which has same bug on FreeDOS(because it was based on DOS 3.30 & then devolved separately).
Of course,on 286 with 1MB RAM I can only use 640KB & load Mouse driver,only if necessary, CD driver(VideCDD.sys worx with DOS 3.30 & on 286 best) fits always in memory,Unisound too,just for some games,like Keen 4 & 5 I must leave Norton Commander & run them from plain command prompt,but that would be same with any DOS on a 286 with 1MB RAM.
On K5 everything except Secret Agent is working,so what?
I think,it is same successfull as DOS 5 & 6 & only little behind DOS 6.22 .
& very,very stable.

Admin is about to delete all my topics,I will probably even have no time for back it up,count votes & so,if some1 will be able to count votes,be4 the topic will disappear, please let me know via e-mail.

I could be confusing DOS 3.3 with DOS 3.2. Because:

1) that is the version Tandy actually shipped for my 1000SX. That version also came with a modified version of mode.com that could slow down the CPU for compatibilith with older hardware, so I think that's why I had to stick with it
2) DOS 3.3 introduced support for disks >32MB, so makes sense why I had to use a workaround for a 42MB disk under an older version of DOS

I definitely remember the text instruction that showed a step by step installation procedure, gonna have to find it later to confirm

jheronimus wrote on 2025-03-02, 16:18:

I could be confusing DOS 3.3 with DOS 3.2. Because:

1) that is the version Tandy actually shipped for my 1000SX. That version also came with a modified version of mode.com that could slow down the CPU for compatibilith with older hardware, so I think that's why I had to stick with it

3.20 may seem a bit glacial, indeed.

3.30 was (almost) the last of the series, the most mature, and due to problems with 4.x the 3.30 was the most popular version until 5.0.
In retrospective - one of the most successful DOS versions ever.

However, even 3.20 contains FDISK and SELECT.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if they were removed from the boot floppy shipped with a HDD-less machine.

2) DOS 3.3 introduced support for disks >32MB

AFAIK, not.

PC DOS/MS-DOS 3.30, and earlier:
- PARTITION/FILESYSTEM size limit of 32 MB
- DISKS can be larger

MS-DOS 3.31 for Compaq and few other OEMs:
- PARTITION size limit of 512 MB
- FILESYSTEM size limit of 2 GB
Yes, I did use the 3.31 with a 2 GB filesystem!
It can't be a local HDD partition, but has to be provided in some other way - in my case it was by NETDRIVE.SYS.

I don't know about DR-DOS 3.31 - it was a completely different product.

I have read some article(long ago) stating,that for MS-DOS 3.20 & earlier 32MB was whole disk limit,as it only supported 1 FAT14* partition per disk(cannot confirm/test,as I do not have this version nor earlier).
Then there was stated,that MS-DOS 3.30 added support for extended partition & logical partitions,still FAT14*,32MB each,which I can confirm,as I tested it twice(2 of my 3 MS-DOS 3.30 installs r on hard drive>32MB with multiple FAT14* partitions).
Since MS-DOS 3.31 support for real FAT16* was added.
The whole HDD limit for MS-DOS 3.31 & above is 7.8GB,if Your BIOS allowed more than 504MB(the lower limit applied).
*FAT14 was officially presented as "FAT16", which was a deception,as it was & is 14bit.
Full name of the later FAT16 is "FAT16B", but it was the 1st real 16bit FAT.

So I did a few experiments, on a 486DX2-66, with a 256 MB HDD...

PC DOS 3.20 is glacial, indeed:
- no support for Extended/Logical partitions
- can create only one DOS partition, up to 32 MB
- in effect, can't fully use HDD >32 MB without special third-party solutions
- has some other problems: after some struggle I managed to create the 32 MB partition, set it Active, format it, and transfer the system files - but couldn't boot off the HDD, it just hanged without any error messages
- lacks even the cosmetic feature of disabling displaying commands in BAT programs using the '@' character

PC DOS 3.30, however, is a completely different story:
- supports Extended/Logical partitions
- in effect, can use my entire HDD, only divided into 8 partitions
- no problems installing it on my HDD, and booting off it
- the '@' character in BATs already works

A few screenshots from the FDISK - very inconvenient with the 256 MB disk, but in the era of 40 MB HDDs it was commonly considered "good enough":

As for the "14-bit" of the original FAT16:
- every element of the FAT table occupies 2 Bytes = 16 bits
- maximum partition size is 2^16 sectors
- in theory, the above should allow for 2^16 clusters, with 1 sector/cluster
- in my setup, however, the partitions got formatted with 4 sectors/cluster, ie. 2^14 clusters total

OK now, all you haters of early DOSes...

Guess how I did the following?

Yes, a DOS from 1984 - not just glacial, more like Jurassic!
Volkov Commander already refuses to run...
But somehow it can into a 200+ MB disk!