Poll: MS-DOS Versions

This is a simple poll. If you reply, put your version of DOS (because I'm curious). I run a 6.2 which is found on old systems but is better than Windows 9x and up.
«1

Comments

  • : This is a simple poll. If you reply, put your version of DOS (because I'm curious). I run a 6.2 which is found on old systems but is better than Windows 9x and up.
    :
    I run Ms-Dos 6.22
    one of 3 diffrent OSs I have on my computer.
  • : This is a simple poll. If you reply, put your version of DOS (because I'm curious). I run a 6.2 which is found on old systems but is better than Windows 9x and up.
    :

    Hi DOS users!

    Having tried numerous versions of DOS, I definitely prefer 6.22 (if you're talking about
    MS-DOS that is). And that comment about Win9x? I couldn't have put it better myself! Windows
    9x sucks! I installed Red Hat Linux 7.0 on my PC a month ago and I'm not going back to
    the crash-reboot-kick PC-crash cycle of Windows. And XP? I don't want to pay 80 for an
    OS that supposedly doesn't work with some hardware/software, looks almost cartoony. I also
    don't want to ask Bill Gates permission to use software I spend my hard-earned cash on
    after reinstalling it.

    Well, thats just my $0.02 (or 0.02 in my case)

    See ya laters,
    (:---Dodgy Del Boy---:)

  • : This is a simple poll. If you reply, put your version of DOS (because I'm curious). I run a 6.2 which is found on old systems but is better than Windows 9x and up.
    :

    While I don't own copies of all, I have at one time or another used just about all of them (Windows & DOS versions)... my current preference is for Win98SE, and prior to that (for what it is) Windows For Workgroups 3.11

    As for DOS, no question it's peak is v6.22... prior to that it's 3.1

    Moving away from those - - -

    Dec's VMS/DCL is hot... nearly any version

    HP's RTE6vm (last of the Real-Time Executive series)... THE hottest, most flexible OS I've ever worked with (in the lab).

    Unix... any flavor... nice, but WAY too much overhead

  • I've got dos 6.22 and win3.1 on a 212MB hard drive, dos 7.1 on two comps w/ win98. I only use winblowz to get online and crash! Geez, even Notepad has bugs (it froze and "didn't respond" on me 3 times in a row)! I guess that's what happens when C++ is used to write an OS...
  • Quite intersting all these points of view...


    ---A newbie wandering
  • : I've got dos 6.22 and win3.1 on a 212MB hard drive, dos 7.1 on two comps w/ win98. I only use winblowz to get online and crash! Geez, even Notepad has bugs (it froze and "didn't respond" on me 3 times in a row)! I guess that's what happens when C++ is used to write an OS...
    :
    Yeah, but it's not all written in C++! It is also written in Assembler, C (which is the same as C++ in this case, but I don't care right now), COBOL, and some other miscellaneous languages that I don't know about. I got that from PC Magazine.

    Oh, and, by the way, I noticed something. After around MS-DOS 6.2, Microsoft seems to have decreased in its development. They made it less in file size, but that just gave everything runtime errors (Yes, I'm serious! I can't even set up the Duke 3D Demo on my Win98 machine!). And now, in Windows XP, DOS is completely gone...

    ~sniffle~
  • [b][red]This message was edited by the Davide Vecchi at 2002-6-17 3:15:40[/red][/b][hr]
    (Quote)
    [italic]Windows got a bad reputation from the common person who does not know how to tweak registry/system file settings and make it run nicely[/italic]

    But Windows is sold to the common persons, so it should work just fine most of times without the need of being a technician, while it really doesn' t; nor it provides real info to the end-user on how to tweak it to make it work.
    It deserves its bad reputation in my opinion.

    Poll MS-DOS Versions: DR-DOS 7.03 (not MS), MS-DOS 6.22 less frequently.




  • Where can I get MSDOS 6.2 or 6.22 or whatever anyone feels is the better of the versions(the majority say 6.2?); with all the utilities and everything (I heard it came with an undelete and other stuff).
  • I've got DOS 6.22 on one of my computers and with most of the utilities, if not all. I also have the installation disks (some have demagnetized over the years) for DOS 6.22 and Windows for Workgroups 3.1. On the same hard drive, I've also got Windows 3.11. There is one important thing: These'll scramble a FAT32 partition if they think it's FAT16!
  • : I've got DOS 6.22 on one of my computers and with most of the utilities, if not all. I also have the installation disks (some have demagnetized over the years) for DOS 6.22 and Windows for Workgroups 3.1. On the same hard drive, I've also got Windows 3.11. There is one important thing: These'll scramble a FAT32 partition if they think it's FAT16!
    :

    Thats great, do you thing you could upload it somewhere or email it to me? pneumoconi@hotmail.com
  • [b][red]This message was edited by stober at 2002-7-26 20:36:6[/red][/b][hr]
    I'm supprised you guys are still living in the 20th century with those MS-DOS 6.X machines! It's unbelieveable that anyone would still elect to use that ancient technology. Sure, they are kind of fun to program, and easy to maintain. But that's about all thry are good for. The graphics and speed of MS Windows 2000/XP compared to MS-DOS is beyond belief, and getting even better every year. I have three computers running XP, one with W2K and NONE Win95/98 (because they suck) all at my home. I work for a very large company which has over 2,000 computers running Windows 2000 and XP, and a few Sun unix servers. All of them are networked together as well and have continuous internet access. The avent of Windows NT/2000/XP has greatly increased business productivity. I can do more in one minute than I used to be able to do in one hour on those old MS-DOS computers. I am a computer programmer, and frequently use my W2K computer to compile 15 programs simultaneously -- and that only takes about 5 minutes! Twenty years ago, it would have taken about 1/2 hour each, or about 3 hours to complete them.

    Pleassssse, spare me the retheric about Linex vs MS Windows!! I concede that unix is a much better server computer -- Windows doesn't even come close to beating it.

    I would never return to MS-DOS for any price.




  • I don't use DOS 6.22 as much now that I've got Win98 up and running (it had a problem with a bad sector and incorrect video driver: GeForce instead of RIVA TNT2 Ultra after a Ghost copy). It really shouldn't be very hard for M$ to write a generic VESA LFB driver that is a runs well at a nice speed, I hate messing around with drivers... and crashes!
  • (Quote)
    [italic]The avent of Windows NT/2000/XP has greatly increased business productivity. I can do more in one minute than I used to be able to do in one hour on those old MS-DOS computers[/italic]

    It depends on the kind of business. Not all the businesses need multitasking, exciting user interfaces, MS-Office and such. And not in all the businesses it' s acceptable to have to reboot the PC on a regular basis and continuously install patches.

    About speed, if you try to write and run a number-crunching application for plain DOS and the same for Windows and you benchmark them, you' ll see what i mean.
  • :: About speed, if you try to write and run a number-crunching application for plain DOS and the same for Windows and you benchmark them, you' ll see what i mean.
    :


    Yes, I agree with you about speed -- Windows and unix are not very good for real-time applications. I did that kind of bench mark a few years ago when we thought of porting our real-time app from MS DOS 6.X to Windows 95 or unix, and found that it would not work because windows and unix were too slow.
  • : :: About speed, if you try to write and run a number-crunching application for plain DOS and the same for Windows and you benchmark them, you' ll see what i mean.
    : :
    :
    :
    : Yes, I agree with you about speed -- Windows and unix are not very good for real-time applications. I did that kind of bench mark a few years ago when we thought of porting our real-time app from MS DOS 6.X to Windows 95 or unix, and found that it would not work because windows and unix were too slow.
    :

    Overall, Windows is a poor operating system - period. Windows is pure GUI... nothing but looks and flash, built originally around a DOS core... Microsoft's own words. More of Microsoft's words have been that Windows is now it's own entity. False. It still to this day has snippets of DOS within it (even XP). Billy-boy would love you to believe such things. It truly kills me (makes me laugh) that there's a new version each year... truly, what are the improvements? The bottom line, Windows is a terrible approach to multi-tasking... Unix fares a bit better... but OS's like HP's RTE and DEC's VMS were born to it. Besides all of that, I'd cut my arm off first before buying and using XP... I prefer to keep Microsoft's nose out of my surfing and computing activities. Can't you just wait for the future?!? I'd suggest you, we, all, learn how to "Baaaa" like sheep and "Moo" like cows... the fleecing and milking has only just begun. I'll throw one more stone in this pond... Intel is a liar and a cheat... the Pentium technology and speed was available back in the late 1980's... but after spending major $$$ to develop it only to find that Japan had caught the US with it's pants down with regard to processing power/speed, Intel decided to recoup it cash by releasing Pentium in phases... any of you recall the import embargo against Japan's technology in the 80's???... they were only allowed in PROVIDED the processor was Intel's... interesting huh?... do the homework and prove it to yourself (don't just take my word for it).

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories