• FreeDOS vs MS-DOS

    From unixl0rd@21:2/150 to All on Sat Feb 10 07:13:12 2024
    Hello everyone,

    I have this 486dx in my basement that I want to restore. My goal is to use it as a BBS client and a DOS gaming computer.

    I'm still debating whether I should install FreeDOS or MS-DOS. On the one hand, FreeDOS is up-to-date, has its own package management program, and seems easier to set up. On the other hand, it may not be as compatible as MS-DOS in regard to games that were programmed in non-standard ways.

    What do you think? Should I install FreeDOS or MS-DOS (or any other flavour of DOS)?

    ... DE JA FU: A feeling that things have been this FU'ed before.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From paulie420@21:2/150 to unixl0rd on Sat Feb 10 13:11:20 2024
    I have this 486dx in my basement that I want to restore. My goal is to
    use it as a BBS client and a DOS gaming computer.

    I'm still debating whether I should install FreeDOS or MS-DOS. On the
    one hand, FreeDOS is up-to-date, has its own package management program, and seems easier to set up. On the other hand, it may not be as
    compatible as MS-DOS in regard to games that were programmed in non-standard ways.

    That's a great question - on my retro hardware I usually us MS-DOS unless I'm wanting the networking features in FreeDOS [and mTCP]... however yer going to be using a fossil driver and frontdoor software to pass to telnet, right - hmmmm; and you said you want to use it for DOS gaming...

    I might just try good ole MS-DOS 6.22 and see if it got all the needed functions done - I'd use the lowest common denominator that will work - if you don't need the networking tools of FreeDOS, MS-DOS has been tried and true for both of the things you want to do with the machine...

    Also, I might check with the MetroNet guys - they are mostly Renegade sysOps, a majority of who have lots of knowledge running on hardware like you describe. They'll be a big help in those few tools that get a DOS based BBS connected to current-BBSing...



    |07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
    |08.........

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From unixl0rd@21:2/150 to paulie420 on Sat Feb 10 16:53:50 2024
    I might just try good ole MS-DOS 6.22 and see if it got all the needed functions done - I'd use the lowest common denominator that will work -

    Good idea. MS-DOS 6.22 it shall be.

    ... Lesser known Shakespeare: /Tits Anonymous/

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From paulie420@21:2/150 to unixl0rd on Sat Feb 10 20:13:10 2024
    I might just try good ole MS-DOS 6.22 and see if it got all the neede functions done - I'd use the lowest common denominator that will work

    Good idea. MS-DOS 6.22 it shall be.

    Do hop on over to MetroNet, tho - they will steer you in the right direction of running a DOS based BBS in 2024.



    |07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
    |08.........

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to unixl0rd on Mon Feb 12 09:59:23 2024
    Re: FreeDOS vs MS-DOS
    By: unixl0rd to All on Sat Feb 10 2024 07:13 am

    I'm still debating whether I should install FreeDOS or MS-DOS. On the one hand, FreeDOS is up-to-date, has its own package management program, and seems easier to set up. On the other hand, it may not be as compatible as MS-DOS in regard to games that were programmed in non-standard ways.

    What do you think? Should I install FreeDOS or MS-DOS (or any other flavour of DOS)?

    When you say FreeDOS is "up to date", what does that mean? I imagine FreeDOS probably has some stuff that MS-DOS doesn't have, but I feel like MS-DOS is what almost everyone ran on a PC, so I'd go with MS-DOS.

    There are also alternatives such as Digital Research's DR-DOS and IBM's PC-DOS, which are interesting, but I've heard of things like Microsoft making Windows 3.1 refuse to run if it detected DR-DOS, and things like that..

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From Dr. What@21:1/616 to Nightfox on Tue Feb 13 07:46:16 2024
    Nightfox wrote to unixl0rd <=-

    When you say FreeDOS is "up to date", what does that mean?

    It means that FreeDOS will run well on a modern PC whereas MS-DOS probably won't.

    I have FreeDOS set up on an old HP that I picked up at Goodwill. FreeDOS will support things like mounting a USB drive, for example. Where MS-DOS won't even know what a USB drive is.

    IHMO: If you are running anything newer than a Pentium system, go with FreeDOS.
    Pentium and below, MS-DOS will work fine.


    ... SWF, blonde bombshell, seeks man now. No SYSOPs.
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to Dr. What on Tue Feb 13 09:44:50 2024
    Re: Re: FreeDOS vs MS-DOS
    By: Dr. What to Nightfox on Tue Feb 13 2024 07:46 am

    When you say FreeDOS is "up to date", what does that mean?

    It means that FreeDOS will run well on a modern PC whereas MS-DOS probably won't.

    I have FreeDOS set up on an old HP that I picked up at Goodwill. FreeDOS will support things like mounting a USB drive, for example. Where MS-DOS won't even know what a USB drive is.

    IHMO: If you are running anything newer than a Pentium system, go with FreeDOS. Pentium and below, MS-DOS will work fine.

    Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, I think if you're using a PC from around 1990-1999 or so, MS-DOS is probably fine.

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From unixl0rd@21:2/150 to Nightfox on Wed Feb 14 07:23:55 2024
    When you say FreeDOS is "up to date", what does that mean? I imagine

    I meant that FreeDOS is an active project. The last commit on github is from last week: https://github.com/FDOS/kernel

    like MS-DOS is what almost everyone ran on a PC, so I'd go with MS-DOS.

    I ended up choosing MS-DOS 6.22.

    There are also alternatives such as Digital Research's DR-DOS and IBM's PC-DOS, which are interesting, but I've heard of things like Microsoft making Windows 3.1 refuse to run if it detected DR-DOS, and things like that..

    There is also 'Concurrent DOS', which is a multitasking version of DOS. Someone could write an entire book about DOS (and I would buy it lol).

    ... He's got the job, he HAS to be qualified.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From Dr. What@21:1/616 to unixl0rd on Thu Feb 15 07:43:26 2024
    unixl0rd wrote to Nightfox <=-

    There is also 'Concurrent DOS', which is a multitasking version of DOS. Someone could write an entire book about DOS (and I would buy it lol).

    Concurrent DOS was one of many. I remember using a product called Thoroughbread(I might have the spelling wrong) that offered a multi-user OS for IBM compatible systems back in ... 1985 (I think).

    When CP/M was made, it was set up like a computer/terminal configuration. You had the computer here, running programs. It sent data to a separate subsystem (usually separate hardware in the box) that actually displayed the data on something. Same for taking input.

    A set up like that made a multi-user MS-DOS really easy to do.

    But by the time that came out, too many programmers were used to owning the whole computer with their software. So that separation wasn't possible with the current applications.

    So Concurrent DOS was nice, it also didn't work with the apps that people wanted to run.


    ... Stipulation #1: There will be no stipulations
    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)
  • From acn@21:3/127.1 to Nightfox on Thu Feb 15 14:18:00 2024
    Am 12.02.24 schrieb Nightfox@21:1/137 in FSX_RETRO:

    Hallo Nightfox,

    There are also alternatives such as Digital Research's DR-DOS and IBM's PC-DOS, which are interesting, but I've heard of things like Microsoft making Windows 3.1 refuse to run if it detected DR-DOS, and things like that..

    This is known as the "AARD" code in Windows 3.1.
    But it was only active in a beta version of Win3.1 and not in the
    release version, although it was kept in the software.
    Digital Research provided an update for DR-DOS 6 ("business update"),
    so that DR-DOS would pass the AARD check.

    So, it is absolutely possible to use Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS/Novell DOS/ OpenDOS.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

    Regards,
    Anna

    --- OpenXP 5.0.57
    * Origin: Imzadi Box Point (21:3/127.1)
  • From Nightfox@21:1/137 to acn on Thu Feb 15 13:52:49 2024
    Re: Re: FreeDOS vs MS-DOS
    By: acn to Nightfox on Thu Feb 15 2024 02:18 pm

    This is known as the "AARD" code in Windows 3.1. But it was only active in a beta version of Win3.1 and not in the release version, although it was kept in the software. Digital Research provided an update for DR-DOS 6 ("business update"), so that DR-DOS would pass the AARD check.

    So, it is absolutely possible to use Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS/Novell DOS/ OpenDOS.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

    Ah, interesting...

    Nightfox
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
  • From hollowone@21:2/150 to paulie420 on Tue Jul 16 11:58:49 2024
    I might just try good ole MS-DOS 6.22 and see if it got all the needed functions done - I'd use the lowest common denominator that will work -
    if you don't need the networking tools of FreeDOS, MS-DOS has been tried and true for both of the things you want to do with the machine...


    I don't see any reason why MTCP should not work in MSDOS 6.22 environment if there is right networking card that is enlisted on supported packet driver list.

    I run MTCP on 86box with MSDOS just fine.
    I have FreeDOS on my iMac from 2011 and it also works just fine unless I want to use or programs use 0x60/61 IO ports for keyboard handlers. int 21h keyboard functions work but direct port scanning not, thus some PMODE extenders that rely on 0x60 checks for some reason and most games don't work with FreeDOS anyway... if they are UEFI systems with limited Legacy mode for BIOS boot ups.

    That's my experience.

    -h1

    ... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a mere copy.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From paulie420@21:2/150 to hollowone on Tue Jul 16 20:27:07 2024
    I don't see any reason why MTCP should not work in MSDOS 6.22
    environment if there is right networking card that is enlisted on supported packet driver list.

    I run MTCP on 86box with MSDOS just fine.

    FreeDOS has recently thrown me lots of fade when trying legacy software... its great for playing games in 2024, but not so much when trying to use legacy software that think its 1990.

    Its great, but more useful for getting the most of out of current retro-systems than running legacy software IMO.

    86Box is sick - and I'm still thankful that you turned me onto it.



    |07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
    |08.........

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From Spectre@21:3/101 to hollowone on Wed Jul 17 13:08:00 2024
    I don't see any reason why MTCP should not work in MSDOS 6.22 environment if there is right networking card that is enlisted on supported packet driver list.

    It'll run happily on DOS5.x+ in VMs. Given the provisions already mentioned. VirtualBox has by default 2 supported card types.

    Spec


    *** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
    --- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
    * Origin: A camel is a horse designed by a committee. (21:3/101)
  • From hollowone@21:2/150 to paulie420 on Wed Jul 17 23:48:35 2024
    86Box is sick - and I'm still thankful that you turned me onto it.

    My pleasure :)

    -h1

    ... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a mere copy.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From hollowone@21:2/150 to Spectre on Wed Jul 17 23:50:04 2024
    I don't see any reason why MTCP should not work in MSDOS 6.22 environ if there is right networking card that is enlisted on supported packe driver list.

    It'll run happily on DOS5.x+ in VMs. Given the provisions already mentioned. VirtualBox has by default 2 supported card types.

    I run my DOS inside 86box emulator. If you really want to turn your modern PC into a legacy one, with exact setup (CPU,GPU, Motherboard, you name it).. then I find no other way than 86box.net today.

    -h1

    ... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a mere copy.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From Spectre@21:3/101 to hollowone on Fri Jul 19 08:56:00 2024
    it).. then I find no other way than 86box.net today.

    I hazard a guess, if you want to emulate something a bit "out of the box"
    that it'll do that nicely. For most use cases though, the bells and whistles aren't a major component to DOS software though. I find VB more than sufficient for BBS work, which is all it does.

    Spec


    *** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
    --- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
    * Origin: A camel is a horse designed by a committee. (21:3/101)