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 Today, 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 Today, 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 Today, 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 Today, 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 Today, 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.. 😅