IMHO SvarDOS is way better, than FreeDOS. As for compatibility... m$-DOS 6.22 for pre-386 CPU based systems, and 7.10 (or even ROM-DOS 7.10) for 386 and newer. PC-DOS 2000 (7.0 rev.1) is also good alternative to m$-DOS 7.10.

I will say that although I use DOS 7.1 on all my 32 bit machines, if the machine is 16 bit I use DOS 5.0. DOS 7.1 won't even boot on a 16 bit machine.

I think I might have a couple of machines that I put DOS 3.3 on though.

The real advantages or disadvantages for older machines like that have to do with the utilities. EDIT is nice to have.

MS-DOS 6.22 for most things before Win9x. For Win9x, the DOS that comes with it.

FreeDOS has too many issues with stuff that makes it too much of a headache to work with retro hardware.

Most people have forgotten this, but MS-DOS 6.22 was available for free via the MS ftp site as well as a host of other things before they took the ftp down.

appiah4 wrote on Yesterday, 13:02:

theelf wrote on Yesterday, 12:58:

PC-DOS 7.1, same compatibility MSDOS, FAT32 support even on 286 machines (maybe 8088 but never tested FAT32), very VERY reduced memory needs

Exelent DOS

Hello, fellow man of culture.

Gang PC-DOS

I generally use version 7 unless I need FAT32. The reduced memory use applies not only to the kernel, but also most of the commonly used installable device drivers. Vernon did a great job optimizing it.

cyclone3d wrote on Yesterday, 16:20:

Most people have forgotten this, but MS-DOS 6.22 was available for free via the MS ftp site as well as a host of other things before they took the ftp down.

I recall the 6-to-6.22 "StepUp" upgrade being there, but not the full version.

jakethompson1 wrote on Yesterday, 17:19:

cyclone3d wrote on Yesterday, 16:20:

Most people have forgotten this, but MS-DOS 6.22 was available for free via the MS ftp site as well as a host of other things before they took the ftp down.

I recall the 6-to-6.22 "StepUp" upgrade being there, but not the full version.

That is my recollection also, you had to have 6.0 already. Some folks claimed it worked on 5, but IDK if that was the download version or something they got from their OEM.

theelf wrote on Yesterday, 12:58:

PC-DOS 7.1, same compatibility MSDOS, FAT32 support even on 286 machines (maybe 8088 but never tested FAT32), very VERY reduced memory needs

Exelent DOS

But can it run Windows 3.x with FAT32 ?

MS-DOS 7.10 patched with 3XSTART can do it - there are certain limitations, but nothing serious.

Grzyb wrote on Yesterday, 19:02:

theelf wrote on Yesterday, 12:58:

PC-DOS 7.1, same compatibility MSDOS, FAT32 support even on 286 machines (maybe 8088 but never tested FAT32), very VERY reduced memory needs

Exelent DOS

But can it run Windows 3.x with FAT32 ?

MS-DOS 7.10 patched with 3XSTART can do it - there are certain limitations, but nothing serious.

yes, win3x work perfect with fat32, tested in both my DOS computers using PC-DOS 7.1+FAT32, a 286 and a 486DLC

No need to patch anything, but this patch (second one) is recommended, Making Windows 3.11 work in DOS7.10 (patches inside)

Anyways in years of using FAT32+win3.x on PC-DOS never have any corrution problem

Love my 286 with a 32GB CF Card... plenty of space!!

theelf wrote on Yesterday, 20:26:

yes, win3x work perfect with fat32, tested in both my DOS computers using PC-DOS 7.1+FAT32, a 286 and a 486DLC

No need to patch anything, but this patch (second one) is recommended, Making Windows 3.11 work in DOS7.10 (patches inside)

Anyways in years of using FAT32+win3.x on PC-DOS never have any corrution problem

I'm confused, probably because of this failure report - 3xStart for FAT32 for IBM PC DOS v7.1? (No IO.SYS to modify, has IBMBIO.COM and IBMDOS.COM)

Love my 286 with a 32GB CF Card... plenty of space!!

Nice, you definitely make a good use of that machine - Re: Video playback on a 286? - here's how to do it

But I'm wondering about one thing...
For >8 GB you need INT 13h extensions, right?
Is there some BIOS/driver which provides INT 13h extensions on a 286 ?

Some older versions of Ontrack's DDO exist for 286s.

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 22:43:

Some older versions of Ontrack's DDO exist for 286s.

But what version exactly?
I would expect early Ontrack DDO versions only overcome the 528 MB limit.
For overcoming the 8.4 GB limit, INT 13h Extensions are necessary - when were they first implemented? 1995, or even later? Are there any 286-compatible implementations?

Grzyb wrote on Yesterday, 23:06:

But what version exactly? I would expect early Ontrack DDO versions only overcome the 528 MB limit. For overcoming the 8.4 GB li […]
Show full quote

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 22:43:

Some older versions of Ontrack's DDO exist for 286s.

But what version exactly?
I would expect early Ontrack DDO versions only overcome the 528 MB limit.
For overcoming the 8.4 GB limit, INT 13h Extensions are necessary - when were they first implemented? 1995, or even later? Are there any 286-compatible implementations?

Digging around, I see that Ontrack Disk Manager 5.00a was released in 1992, which still had 286s limping around.
It has support for int13h extensions for cyl counts greater than 1024.

Unsure just how far you can push it, but that should get you over the 504mb hump at least.

More digging, version 6.xx is the first versions to support LBA. It mentions 486s in the readme. It is unknown if it will work on a 286. It released in 1994.