4 ms·

Does FreeDOS do better? It has the distinct advantage of being actively maintained.

jayofdoom 2y ago
FreeDOS is good, but it's a different flavor of DOS and not everything directly lines up. It's certainly where I'd start if I needed a DOS, but I'm sure there are things it won't work with.
- snvzz 2y ago
  There is Svardos as well, with EDR-DOS kernel, enhanced DR-DOS. That DOS was already the better one back then.
  - lproven 2y ago
    I've been playing with it recently. https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/23/svardos_drdos_reborn/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/23/svardos_drdos_reborn/ It's a lot comfier and more familiar in some ways than FreeDOS, and I have a little hobby project based on it. https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos
    - snvzz 2y ago
      It's lovely, and can run Win 3.1 in 386 mode. I am hopeful Freedos will also get there. I believe it is there already with out of tree work.
      - lproven 2y ago
        I believe so, yes. I tried WfWg 3.11 but on reflection it was a bad version to try, what with 32-bit file access and so on. It didn't start successfully. But saying that, I ran and supported Windows 2.01, 3.0 and 3.1 in production. If I never seen any of them running again I will not be sorry. I have zero nostalgia for them, or indeed, for CP/M either.
fuzzfactor 2y ago
Actively maintained is a handicap for something that's supposed to be a fixed long-term "standard". MS-DOS is that immutable standard of the past which reached maximum maturity in 2001. FreeDOS was originally an alternative, but is for the future now. I like FreeDOS but when companies started to distribute their device drivers or software on floppies or CDROMs that were formatted using FreeDOS, it was not pretty. Often there was no successful access or booting to the FAT volume, but all you needed to do was SYS the writable floppy with MS-DOS, or go through the ordeal of "ripping" the CD to correctly SYS its contents. Regardless of the '90's or today I would recommend very strong familiarity with MS-DOS for some time, there is really nothing new there, before moving forward to include FreeDOS in your toolbox. This is how it happened organically when FreeDOS was first emerging.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > Actively maintained is a handicap for something that's supposed to be a fixed long-term "standard". Not if the static version is buggy.
  - icedchai 2y ago
    MS-DOS 6.22 from 1994 isn't stable enough?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      The reason I suggested FreeDOS was because the root comment was essentially a laundry list of bugs in MS-DOS. If there's a readily-available MS-DOS that does the job and doesn't have (material) bugs then sure by all means use that, but then what are we even talking about here?
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        These bugs in ver 3.3 are lingering from when very many individuals could not yet afford a HDD.
    - 2y ago

FreeDOS is good, but it's a different flavor of DOS and not everything directly lines up. It's certainly where I'd start if I needed a DOS, but I'm sure there are things it won't work with.

snvzz 2y ago
There is Svardos as well, with EDR-DOS kernel, enhanced DR-DOS. That DOS was already the better one back then.
- lproven 2y ago
  I've been playing with it recently. https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/23/svardos_drdos_reborn/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/23/svardos_drdos_reborn/ It's a lot comfier and more familiar in some ways than FreeDOS, and I have a little hobby project based on it. https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos https://github.com/lproven/usb-dos
  - snvzz 2y ago
    It's lovely, and can run Win 3.1 in 386 mode. I am hopeful Freedos will also get there. I believe it is there already with out of tree work.
    - lproven 2y ago
      I believe so, yes. I tried WfWg 3.11 but on reflection it was a bad version to try, what with 32-bit file access and so on. It didn't start successfully. But saying that, I ran and supported Windows 2.01, 3.0 and 3.1 in production. If I never seen any of them running again I will not be sorry. I have zero nostalgia for them, or indeed, for CP/M either.

fuzzfactor 2y ago

Actively maintained is a handicap for something that's supposed to be a fixed long-term "standard". MS-DOS is that immutable standard of the past which reached maximum maturity in 2001. FreeDOS was originally an alternative, but is for the future now. I like FreeDOS but when companies started to distribute their device drivers or software on floppies or CDROMs that were formatted using FreeDOS, it was not pretty. Often there was no successful access or booting to the FAT volume, but all you needed to do was SYS the writable floppy with MS-DOS, or go through the ordeal of "ripping" the CD to correctly SYS its contents. Regardless of the '90's or today I would recommend very strong familiarity with MS-DOS for some time, there is really nothing new there, before moving forward to include FreeDOS in your toolbox. This is how it happened organically when FreeDOS was first emerging.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> Actively maintained is a handicap for something that's supposed to be a fixed long-term "standard". Not if the static version is buggy.
- icedchai 2y ago
  MS-DOS 6.22 from 1994 isn't stable enough?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    The reason I suggested FreeDOS was because the root comment was essentially a laundry list of bugs in MS-DOS. If there's a readily-available MS-DOS that does the job and doesn't have (material) bugs then sure by all means use that, but then what are we even talking about here?
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      These bugs in ver 3.3 are lingering from when very many individuals could not yet afford a HDD.
  - 2y ago