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.
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 -
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.
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)?
Nightfox wrote to unixl0rd <=-
When you say FreeDOS is "up to date", what does that mean?
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.
When you say FreeDOS is "up to date", what does that mean? I imagine
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..
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).
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
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 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.
86Box is sick - and I'm still thankful that you turned me onto it.
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.
it).. then I find no other way than 86box.net today.
| Sysop: | Chris Crash |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huntington Beach, CA. |
| Users: | 577 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 62:30:03 |
| Calls: | 10,734 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 5 |
| Messages: | 442,643 |