IIRC you are correct about 4.0. Also IIRC, I think they soon after released a version 4.01 (or maybe 4.10?) that addressed several of the bugs (but maybe not all of them).
Seems to me I remember that the odd versions were better than the even numbered versions...
MIKE POWELL wrote to SPECTRE <=-
Yeah. I have a vague recollection that maybe there were some things
about it that were supposed to work better with Windows 3.x but I may
be way off on that. Since I didn't run Windows I didn't bother
upgrading until 5.0 came out.
Re: Ms-Dos 4.0 Open-Sourced
By: MIKE POWELL to NIGHTFOX on Tue Apr 30 2024 08:12 am
IIRC you are correct about 4.0. Also IIRC, I think they soon after released a version 4.01 (or maybe 4.10?) that addressed several of bugs (but maybe not all of them).
I remember a version 4.01. I had thought even that had bugs in it, as
I rememebr MS-DOS 5.0 seeming like a fairly important version, and I re
Nightfox
Seems to me I remember that the odd versions were better than the even
numbered versions...
The opposite of Star Trek movies, apparently.
It did seem to work out that way... 3.3 and 5.0 seemed more stable than 4.x and 6.0. 6.22 was OK, I guess, but in the applications I used I really didn't notice much of a difference between it and 5.0.
I think the only thing 6.22 had that I used that 5.0 didn't was SCANDISK (vs. CHKDSK). Even then, I didn't necessarily see that as much of an improvemt, although it did have the graphical representation of where it was scanning.
It did seem to work out that way... 3.3 and 5.0 seemed more
stable than 4.x and 6.0. 6.22 was OK, I guess, but in the
applications I used I really didn't notice much of a difference
between it and 5.0.
I think the only thing 6.22 had that I used that 5.0 didn't was
SCANDISK (vs. CHKDSK). Even then, I didn't necessarily see that
as much of an improvemt, although it did have the graphical
representation of where it was scanning.
One thing I liked that was introduced in MS-DOS 6.0 was the ability to
have multiple startup configurations in CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.
So, for instance, you could have one startup configuration for
everyday use and another configuration for an application that
requires more memory, more possible open files, etc..
https://smallvoid.com/article/dos-multiple-configurations.html
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I liked that PC software used to come with manuals, as I enjoyed
looking through manuals to learn about the software. One of my fond memories of MS-DOS (and 90s computer stuff in general) was getting a
copy of MS-DOS 6 and looking through its manual.. It seemed like they really tried to make the manual easy to read and follow. I remember
the back (outer) page of the manual having a car navigating a street
going in a bit of a loop..
MIKE POWELL wrote to NIGHTFOX <=-
My recollection is that they were better than some of the manuals that came with later software... like Windows XP... but were not going to
help someone learn DOS commands like the 5.0 book would have.
I still have an MS-DOS 5 book somewhere... :)
Those books were great for learning batch file programming, which took DOS to a different level. I had a book called "Supercharging MS-DOS" that taught me a lot about batch files - that was right when I was running a DOS BBS and mailer. Batch files were king.
About that time, I got a job at a shop that had a Point-of-Sale system with 100 DOS nodes and 50 or so OS/2 nodes. I was amazed at what you could do with REXX and OS/2.
One thing I liked that was introduced in MS-DOS 6.0 was the ability to have multiple startup configurations in CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.
I thought I was able to do that using 5.0, too, but maybe I didn't start doing that until I had a 6.22 machine.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
:) I'd sometimes heard that MS-DOS batch language was more limited compared to the command shells of UNIX. I've seen some fairly
complicated batch files for Windows though..
About that time, I got a job at a shop that had a Point-of-Sale system with 100 DOS nodes and 50 or so OS/2 nodes. I was amazed at what you could do with REXX and OS/2.
I never did use REXX.. I heard it was good though.
Who remembers 4DOS?
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
Who remembers 4DOS?
I still have an MS-DOS 5 book somewhere... :)i have some MS-DOS 3.3 books
Those books were great for learning batch file programming, which took
DOS to a different level. I had a book called "Supercharging MS-DOS"
that taught me a lot about batch files - that was right when I was
running a DOS BBS and mailer. Batch files were king.
Who remembers 4DOS?
:) I'd sometimes heard that MS-DOS batch language was more limited compared to the command shells of UNIX. I've seen some fairly
complicated batch files for Windows though..
I may think it was introduced in 5.0 because I was using multiple environments. Come to think of it, I think back in my 5.0 days I was still doing that with batch files, like...i made a FreeDOS 1.x updater in freedos batch it's pretty neat! :D
TOxxx.BAT - prepare the system to run xxx by backing up the current AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS, copying the ones for xxx into place, and
then reboot the system.
TODV.BAT - prepare the system to work as normal by backing up, copying
the normal files used with Desqview into place, and rebooting.
So I am sure you (and the internet) are likely correct. ;)
BTW, 'xxx' was most often, but not always, SimCity 2000. ;)
I used to use 4DOS a lot, though I think I had stopped using it with MS-DOS 6. From what I remember, I think the thing I liked most about
4DOS was that you could recall past commands with the up arrow, and I think they added that to COMMAND.COM with MS-DOS 6.
I used to use 4DOS a lot, though I think I had stopped using it with
MS-DOS 6. From what I remember, I think the thing I liked most about 4DOS
was that you could recall past commands with the up arrow, and I think
they added that to COMMAND.COM with MS-DOS 6.
ms-dos 6 command.com dose not do that. FreeDOS's command.com DOSE do that! and it works with MS-DOS! :D
I definitely never used FreeDOS's command.com with MS-DOS. When I was using MS-DOS, in the early-mid 90s, I don't think FreeDOS existed yet. Now that I recall, I think it was a TSR called DOSKEY that MS-DOS came with that allowed recalling past commands with the up arrow.
4DOS was that you could recall past commands with the up arrow, and I think they added that to COMMAND.COM with MS-DOS 6.
ms-dos 6 command.com dose not do that. FreeDOS's command.com DOSE do that! and it works with MS-DOS! :D
I only recall DOS having I think it was F3 for a repeat of last command...
I only recall DOS having I think it was F3 for a repeat of last command...
MS-DOS included the utility DOSKEY, which was a TSR that allowed you to press the up arrow key to recall previous commands.
4DOS was that you could recall past commands with the up arrow,
think they added that to COMMAND.COM with MS-DOS 6.
ms-dos 6 command.com dose not do that. FreeDOS's command.com DOSE do
that! and it works with MS-DOS! :D
I only recall DOS having I think it was F3 for a repeat of last
command...
I only recall DOS having I think it was F3 for a repeat of last command...
That's all the F3 key does, the "last" command... The other tools would let you go back further in the history tree.
I only recall DOS having I think it was F3 for a repeat of last
command...
That's all the F3 key does, the "last" command... The other tools
would let you go back further in the history tree.
All this time, and I never knew F3 recalled the last comand in DOS.
All this time, and I never knew F3 recalled the last comand in DOS.
| Sysop: | tracker1 |
|---|---|
| Location: | Phoenix, AZ |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 25 (0 / 25) |
| Uptime: | 187:10:37 |
| Calls: | 367 |
| Files: | 1,364 |
| Messages: | 36,299 |