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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)