+1
IBMDOS.COM and IBMBIO.COM do equal MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS on MS-DOS.
They're normally invisible due to them having the "hidden" and "system" attribute.
Norton Commander may see and copy them, but that's not really helpful.
Because these system files must be written to at the right spot on the FAT.
Just copying them to a random location doesn't work.
That's why SYS command is there (alternative is FORMAT X: /S).
The only DOS on which that manual copying may work is MS-DOS 7.x, because it has a more advanced boot loader.
Otherwise, COMMAND.COM is the only of the system files that can be manually copied.
Edit: Personally, I think that DOS 5 would be the least trouble some DOS of the vintage series.
Be it classic MS-DOS 5.00a or the earlier DR-DOS 5 that had inspired MS-DOS 5.
If it has to be an DOS 3.x for the sake of authenticity, then I'd consider Compaq DOS 3.31. It has more modern FAT support.
I'm saying this despite being personally more of an PC-DOS 3.30 person.
Because PCD 3.30 was a small part of my childhood it was the oldest DOS that I could relate to.
From a rational point of view, I have to admit that Compaq DOS 3.31 or DR-DOS 3.31 are more useful/stable though.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//