P166 to run DOS 6?

[ms]

I have an old P166 with W95 on it.

Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?

ms

 

[John Dulak]

ms wrote:
> I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
>
> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
>
> ms

Ms:

DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
uses the Intel architecture.

John

--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6

 

[ms]

John Dulak <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07:

> ms wrote:
>> I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
>>
>> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
>>
>> ms
>
> Ms:
>
> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
> uses the Intel architecture.
>
> John
>

Thanks

ms

 

[philo]

"John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07...
> ms wrote:
> > I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
> >
> > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
> >
> > ms
>
> Ms:
>
> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
> uses the Intel architecture.
>
> John
>
>

Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !

 

[John Dulak]

philo wrote:
> "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
> news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07...
>> ms wrote:
>>> I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
>>>
>>> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
>>>
>>> ms
>> Ms:
>>
>> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
>> uses the Intel architecture.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
> Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
>
>

philo:

I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see
6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably
rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working
machine -).

John

--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6

 

[ms]

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:e14PeIN7HHA.4584
@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

>
> "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
> news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07...
>> ms wrote:
>> > I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
>> >
>> > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
>> >
>> > ms
>>
>> Ms:
>>
>> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
>> uses the Intel architecture.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
> Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
>
>
Yes, I ran it on my Xt long ago.

ms

 

[philo]

"John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
news:YPkCi.852$3R5.469@trnddc05...
> philo wrote:
> > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
> > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07...
> >> ms wrote:
> >>> I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
> >>>
> >>> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
> >>>
> >>> ms
> >> Ms:
> >>
> >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
> >> uses the Intel architecture.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
> >
> >
>
> philo:
>
> I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see
> 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably
> rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working
> machine -).
>
>

I fool with the old machines from time to time...
and IBM's XT will run any version of Dos just fine.

I also have one of those Compaq "sewing machines" that is very touchy in
that it will only run (IIRC)dos2.2 and nothing else.

 

[philo]

"ms" <ms@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:5ju6e5F19p8mU1@mid.individual.net...
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:e14PeIN7HHA.4584
> @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
> >
> > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
> > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07...
> >> ms wrote:
> >> > I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
> >> >
> >> > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
> >> >
> >> > ms
> >>
> >> Ms:
> >>
> >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
> >> uses the Intel architecture.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
> >
> >
> Yes, I ran it on my Xt long ago.
>


Even though my XT is up in the attic now , I really pushed things to see
what I could do with it.
I actually installed the dos, GUI-based browser, Arachne on it and was able
to put it on-line...
though a GUI browser was really not usable in any practical sense.

It could run windows1, 2 or 3.0
and I was amazed that I actually could install win3.1 on the machine.

But as soon as I touched the mouse...it ran out of memory and crashed!

 

[Dan]

Sweet! My oldest computer is in New York City where I grew up and it is
currently in storage. I used it about a year ago and it still works. It is
an IBM PCjr and the first big game I played on it was King's Quest 1 on a
5.25 inch black floppy disk. It has an internal speaker with a 3 sounds at
once configuration. It also has two cartridge areas where I can insert a
BASIC cartridge and used to create old BASIC programs that would play sounds
and flash different colors on the screen. It has an EGA (Extended Graphics
Adapter) Display with a fairly small monitor. I think it is about 12.5
inches. My other computers are a 486 with Windows 3.1 which is a great
gaming machine since it has many games loaded onto it and has a Roland MT-32
music card that plays awesome music in my old computer games like Quest For
Glory (originally Hero's Quest by Sierra). I also have my current computer
which is a dual-boot of 98SE and XP Pro. which is currently locked down via a
BIOS password due to security reasons. Now I am using a Windows Vista Home
Premium laptop which is okay but is not as good as 98SE or XP Pro. since it
seems to like to do things automatically for you. I will have to tinker with
the settings to turn that feature off. Thanks for your feedback, philo and
letting me know that you like old computers as well as me. <smiles>

"philo" wrote:

>
> "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
> news:YPkCi.852$3R5.469@trnddc05...
> > philo wrote:
> > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
> > > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07...
> > >> ms wrote:
> > >>> I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
> > >>>
> > >>> ms
> > >> Ms:
> > >>
> > >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
> > >> uses the Intel architecture.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
> > >
> > >
> >
> > philo:
> >
> > I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see
> > 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably
> > rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working
> > machine -).
> >
> >
>
> I fool with the old machines from time to time...
> and IBM's XT will run any version of Dos just fine.
>
> I also have one of those Compaq "sewing machines" that is very touchy in
> that it will only run (IIRC)dos2.2 and nothing else.
>
>
>
>

 

[philo]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A7DDDE0E-A792-4458-895A-C7412B59FABC@microsoft.com...
> Sweet! My oldest computer is in New York City where I grew up and it is
> currently in storage. I used it about a year ago and it still works. It
is
> an IBM PCjr and the first big game I played on it was King's Quest 1 on a
> 5.25 inch black floppy disk. It has an internal speaker with a 3 sounds
at
> once configuration. It also has two cartridge areas where I can insert a
> BASIC cartridge and used to create old BASIC programs that would play
sounds
> and flash different colors on the screen. It has an EGA (Extended
Graphics
> Adapter) Display with a fairly small monitor. I think it is about 12.5
> inches. My other computers are a 486 with Windows 3.1 which is a great
> gaming machine since it has many games loaded onto it and has a Roland
MT-32
> music card that plays awesome music in my old computer games like Quest
For
> Glory (originally Hero's Quest by Sierra). I also have my current
computer
> which is a dual-boot of 98SE and XP Pro. which is currently locked down
via a
> BIOS password due to security reasons. Now I am using a Windows Vista
Home
> Premium laptop which is okay but is not as good as 98SE or XP Pro. since
it
> seems to like to do things automatically for you. I will have to tinker
with
> the settings to turn that feature off. Thanks for your feedback, philo
and
> letting me know that you like old computers as well as me. <smiles>
>



Yes here is where I hang out sometimes

http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/helpline/


Although I'm an old timer and took a few Fortan IV classes back in the
60's...
I hated punch cards so much I swore I'd never touch a computer again.
Although I did own a TI-99 back in 1982 or so...I soon grew tired of it and
again never touched one again until 1999
when my girlfriend gave me her old Packard Bell P-1...(75mhz 8 megs of ram
and a 15" monitor ..$1600 new)
I soon got hooked for good...
but then had to go back to see what I had missed. I soon picked up an XT and
also a Zenith Data systems 386
plus an IBM ps/2 486

Though I started with win95...
I was soon "going back" and learning dos and win3x.

Also decided to upgrade the packard bell and within 6 months had it upgraded
and dual booting win98
and RedHat Linux 5.2

I told everyone that I had finally entered the 20th century...
but they pointed out that it was now the 21st century <G> !!!
(of course I did not bother to point out that we'd really have to wait until
2001)

I ended up getting another Zenith Data system machine...
this time it was a 286 and I (somewhere) got an ISA memory expansion board
and upgraded it to 16 megs of RAM...
the full amount of memory a 286 can address. Twenty years ago...that much
memory would have been beyond the range of anyone but Bill Gates!!!

Another excercise in getting the most out of the least was my win95 install
on a 386 with only a 40 meg HD!

Of course I had to install it onto a larger drive...
then trim it down to a minimum and finally xcopy it to the 40 meg drive!

I suppose I should also mention my amd-550 built into one of those real nice
Gateway-2000 486 towers.
It uses removable drives and I've got caddies with about 20 old operating
systems including OS/2 and NT3.1 etc!

Yep I'm nuts allright

 

[Ingeborg]

John Dulak wrote:

> philo wrote:
>>
>> Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
>>
>
>
> I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see
> 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably
> rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working
> machine -).
>

An XT has an 8088 processor. I don't think MS-DOS can run on an 8080, since
it doesn't provide the segmentffset addressing.

 

[Dan]

<Snip>

How did you like OS/2? I never had a chance to use it.

 

[Dan]

I also thought DOS started to be supported in the 286 line of computers.

"Ingeborg" wrote:

> John Dulak wrote:
>
> > philo wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
> >>
> >
> >
> > I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see
> > 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably
> > rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working
> > machine -).
> >
>
> An XT has an 8088 processor. I don't think MS-DOS can run on an 8080, since
> it doesn't provide the segmentffset addressing.
>

 

[Ingeborg]

=?Utf-8?B?RGFu?= wrote:
>
> "Ingeborg" wrote:
>
>>
>> An XT has an 8088 processor. I don't think MS-DOS can run on an 8080,
>> since it doesn't provide the segmentffset addressing.
>>
> I also thought DOS started to be supported in the 286 line of
> computers.

Some history is needed, I think.

1974 First you had the 8080. This processor has an 8 bit databus, and a
16 bit address bus.It could address 64 kB. It should be feeded by
-5V, +5V, +12V.
1975 Then came the 8085. This one is identical to the 8080, but it only
needed +5V.
1978 The 8086. A 16 bit processor. 16 bit databus, 20 bit addressbus.
Internally 2*16 bits are used for addressing, but some funny
bitshifting translated this in 20 bits addressing, capable for 1MB.
This processor is the oldest one which can host MS-DOS. The older
ones cannot due to the lack of the bitshifting trick.
1979 The 8088. This one was build in the original IBM PC, for which
MS-DOS is written. It is program compatible with the 8086, but it
has an 8 bit databus, which made cheaper motherboards. It also
made this one slower than the 8086.
1982 80186 and 80186. Mostly identical to the 8086 and 8088, but some
peripherals were integrated. (DMA controller, PIC, timers).
1982 80286. 16 bits databus and 24 bit addressbus, capable for 16 MB.
MS-DOS could only use 1 MB, though. (Well actually, by using HMA
it could use 1 MB + 64kB - 1byte).
1986 80386. This one had a 32 bit databus and could work with a 32 bit
addressbus, and so was able to address 4GB. (Not really, it didn't
have 32 physical address lines, but it could do 32 bit flat
addressing). Until the 64 bit processors arrived (2003) nothing
serious changed in the younger processors.


Summary: MS-DOS is written for the 8088, but could also run on the older
8086, due to build-in compatibility. The 286, three years younger, is
fully downcompatible, and is thus able to run dos. All 'Intel-
compatible' processors nowadays are still downcompatible to the 8086, and
are able to run dos.

 

[Dan]

Software Security Concerns

<snipped for length concerns>

Thank you. I know my IBM PCjr has BASIC since it has a BASIC cartridge.
[So this old computer actually supports DOS and would that only be IBM DOS or
both IBM DOS and MS-DOS? ---- question for you --- rest mainly data] <aside
-- does anyone know if 98 Guy still testing Windows 2000 patches and using
them on his 98 Second Edition machine --- I stopped doing that a long time
ago and he was always the leader in that area> I remember the two companies
were really competing against each other for a while especially before
Windows 3.1. I read about how Microsoft had two lines of source code and one
was the NT (New Technology -- early Microsoft engineers joked it was Not
There due to the lack of a maintenance operating system like DOS --- I read
about this in a book about Microsoft's history and Chris Quirke, MVP has
frequently talked about this topic in this newsgroup) I was pleased to see
how he had posts from mine previously about the problems with XP Professional
and vulnerabilities due to the amount of services thus providing a greater
hacking potential and because of the problems of remote access and insecurity
in that area. Please see more at:

http://cquirke.blogspot.com/

and especially

http://www.spywarepoint.com/forums/t26963-p7-microsoft-zero-day-security-holes-being-exploited.html

also see:

http://secunia.com/

and compare security of XP Professional to 98 Second Edition

http://secunia.com/product/13/ -----

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 32 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 9% (3 of 32 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 98
Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical

http://secunia.com/product/22/


Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 188 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 15% (29 of 188 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP
Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical


<Less Critical in 98SE compared to Highly Critical in XP --- hmm --- let's
see which one to choose --- note the blantlenly sarcastic tone>

and now for home version of xp too --- this will hurt the xp fans if they
ever bother looking in this newsgroup

http://secunia.com/product/16/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 172 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 16% (27 of 172 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP
Home Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical

Now let us compare browsers ---- shall we:


version 5.01 of MIE

http://secunia.com/product/9/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 72 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 8% (6 of 72 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet
Explorer 5.01, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical


version of Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5

http://secunia.com/product/10/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 70 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 9% (6 of 70 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet
Explorer 5.5, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical

Now version MIE 6.x

http://secunia.com/product/11/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link View Here (Link to external site)


Affected By 118 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 18% (21 of 118 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet
Explorer 6.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical

The "great" MIE 7 -- at least it has 256 bit encryption in Windows Vista
like Mozilla Firefox provides for even 98 Second Edition users

http://secunia.com/product/12366/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link View Here (Link to external site)


Affected By 18 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 56% (10 of 18 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet
Explorer 7.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical

<highly critical again for Internet Explorer 7 --- shocking to me at least>

only going to provide web-link for latest Mozilla Firefox due to length
concerns of thread:

http://secunia.com/product/12434/

Vendor Mozilla Organization


Product Link View Here (Link to external site)


Affected By 14 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 43% (6 of 14 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Mozilla Firefox 2.0.x,
with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical

Now let us tie this all up soon and here is Opera which I do not like
because the interface annoys me but it seems to be secure:

http://secunia.com/product/10615/

Vendor Opera Software


Product Link View Here (Link to external site)


Affected By 9 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 0% (0 of 9 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
There are no unpatched Secunia advisories affecting this product, when all
vendor patches are applied.

<Still because Opera Web Browser has such a small market share -- I wonder
how many hackers have tried really hard to break in because of its small
market share>

Oh Yeah -- almost forgot -- Windows Vista

It seems like all the volunteer beta testing really helped harden this new
Microsoft operating system


http://secunia.com/product/13223/


Vendor Microsoft


Product Link View Here (Link to external site)


Affected By 12 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 8% (1 of 12 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows
Vista, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Not critical

The detailed analysis of the one unpatched vulnerability in Vista


http://secunia.com/advisories/24245/

finally NT data which to Microsoft's credit is fairly secure like 98 Second
Edition:

http://secunia.com/product/15/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 39 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 15% (6 of 39 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows NT
4.0 Workstation, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical


http://secunia.com/product/19/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 56 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 11% (6 of 56 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows NT
4.0 Server, Terminal Server Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is
rated Less critical

http://secunia.com/product/18/

Vendor Microsoft


Product Link N/A


Affected By 57 Secunia advisories


Unpatched 11% (6 of 57 Secunia advisories)


Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows NT
4.0 Server, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical


As for me all these reasons is a fantastic reason to have a dumb computer
terminal that is not hooked up to the web. For me that is a 486 with a cool
Roland MT-32 music card and lots of old DOS games and some Windows 3.1 games
on it. I also am able to use DOS 5.x nicely. Thanks for listening and have
a great day

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

<I am not responsible for anyone clicking these web links and they are just
provided as a courtesy to the web user who wants to see them. Personally, I
do not care if you look at them or you don't look at them. Have a nice day!>

Dan Weiser

 

[Dan]

Thanks for sharing, philo.

"philo" wrote:

>
> "ms" <ms@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:5ju6e5F19p8mU1@mid.individual.net...
> > "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:e14PeIN7HHA.4584
> > @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
> >
> > >
> > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message
> > > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07...
> > >> ms wrote:
> > >> > I have an old P166 with W95 on it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer?
> > >> >
> > >> > ms
> > >>
> > >> Ms:
> > >>
> > >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that
> > >> uses the Intel architecture.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, I ran it on my Xt long ago.
> >
>
>
> Even though my XT is up in the attic now , I really pushed things to see
> what I could do with it.
> I actually installed the dos, GUI-based browser, Arachne on it and was able
> to put it on-line...
> though a GUI browser was really not usable in any practical sense.
>
> It could run windows1, 2 or 3.0
> and I was amazed that I actually could install win3.1 on the machine.
>
> But as soon as I touched the mouse...it ran out of memory and crashed!
>
>
>

 

[Ingeborg]

Re: Software Security Concerns

=?Utf-8?B?RGFu?= wrote:

> I know my IBM PCjr has BASIC since it has a BASIC cartridge.
> So this old computer actually supports DOS and would that only be IBM
> DOS or both IBM DOS and MS-DOS?

According to Wikipedia a PCjr has a 8088 processor, and a compatible bios,
and was designed to run IBM PC-DOS 2.1. So it should be able to run MS-DOS.
(There is no difference between IBM-DOS and MS-DOS, until version 6.0). But
since it has only 64 or 128 kB memory, many dos applications will not be
able to run on it. It also has a non-standard graphics card, so graphical
programs are unlikely to run either.

You can give it a try if your PCjr has a floppydrive and you are able to
create a bootable 360kB 5.12" disk.

 

[Dan]

Re: Software Security Concerns

Thank you. Since it is in N.Y.C. and I will return on holiday in
December/January then I will try then. My dad, Ivan and I maxed out the
amount of memory from the default 128 kb of memory to the maximum allowed in
the machine of 640 kb's. I really appreciate your response, Ingeborg and
come to think about it --- I think my dad did create a DOS 5.25 or owned a
5.25 inch black floppy disk --- I will have to check with him and in
Manhatten when I return.

"Ingeborg" wrote:

> =?Utf-8?B?RGFu?= wrote:
>
> > I know my IBM PCjr has BASIC since it has a BASIC cartridge.
> > So this old computer actually supports DOS and would that only be IBM
> > DOS or both IBM DOS and MS-DOS?
>
> According to Wikipedia a PCjr has a 8088 processor, and a compatible bios,
> and was designed to run IBM PC-DOS 2.1. So it should be able to run MS-DOS.
> (There is no difference between IBM-DOS and MS-DOS, until version 6.0). But
> since it has only 64 or 128 kB memory, many dos applications will not be
> able to run on it. It also has a non-standard graphics card, so graphical
> programs are unlikely to run either.
>
> You can give it a try if your PCjr has a floppydrive and you are able to
> create a bootable 360kB 5.12" disk.
>

 

[philo]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B7E72BB-D7D3-4584-A23B-61C33D9E61B5@microsoft.com...
> <Snip>
>
> How did you like OS/2? I never had a chance to use it.


I really like OS/2 I have an installation of Warp3 and also the newer
incarnation, Ecomstation.

OS/2...has an extremely refined GUI...the best GUI Ive ever seen, Crystal
clear and well defined graphics
and outstandingly clear fonts.

It's somwhat similar to NT in that there is no "real" dos...
and does have an emulated cmd window as does NT.
Contained within OS/2 is also win3.1...so it's an odd hybrid.

Also...at least in the older versions...you could put a dos floppy in the
drive and boot over to any version of dos you wanted to use...
though it would still be emulated.

It's similar in some ways to Windows in that is uses a config.sys and
autoexec.bat...
but they are quite necessary for operation and very complex.
The worst thing is that (unlike windows) if there is an error on one line
you can easily end up with a non-bootable system.

So it's really kind of an impractical OS...but I still like it a lot!

 

[philo]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FD75BD6-CD06-4D96-A44F-397C4FEFCE38@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for sharing, philo.



Sure thing...
I'll save my story of win98 on a 386 for another day <G>