Mail Archives: opendos/2003/10/09/19:43:18
[I hope this comes through the v*r*s-f*lter now...]
On 2003-09-28, Peter Lindner wrote:
> Sorry |-( *my fault*! My (German) version of MS-DOS is 6.22,
> not 4.22. Typing VER on my system returns "4DOS 5.50 DOS 6,22".
> As far as I know vs 6.22 is the last vs of MS-DOS, at least in
> Germany.
Yes and no. MS-DOS 6.22 (1993) was the last stand-alone
version of MS-DOS, although a stand-alone version of MS-DOS 7.0
was developed by Microsoft, but not released as a separate
product any more. MS-DOS 7.0, however, is the DOS found in
the original Windows 95 (1995) product bundle of MS-DOS 7.0
and Windows 4.00 and the Windows 95 OSR 1 release. The
FAT32/LBA-enabled Windows 95 OSR 2, OSR 2.5 and OPK 3 releases
already included MS-DOS 7.10, which can also be found in
Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE (sometimes known as Windows 98 ZA
in Germany). Both, MS-DOS 7.0 and 7.10 can be easily extracted
from the Windows 9x software bundle and used as stand-alone
DOS products (ignoring some of the "odd" system file names
when comparing them with the traditional DOS file naming
conventions). The last version of MS-DOS was MS-DOS 8.0
(in 1999) - this is the (hidden) DOS incorporated in the
Windows ME bundle of MS-DOS 8.0 and Windows 4.99. Any of
these versions were available in a multitude of languages,
including German versions.
However, even if you would not want to go for MS-DOS 7.0,
you could still upgrade your MS-DOS 6.22 to IBM's PC DOS:
Originally, PC DOS was an OEM version of MS-DOS, but
starting with MS-DOS 6.0 and PC DOS 6.1, the two products
diverted as the companies stopped their joined development
of DOS, although, judging from some fixes in some API
functions I have observed, the core of the files must
have been partially synchronized between both companies
at least up to PC DOS 7.0 - I assume some maintenance fix
cross license agreements were still in place there.
PC DOS 6.3 was released shortly after MS-DOS 6.22 in
1993, and later was superseeded by PC DOS 7.0 (revision 0)
in 1994. A minor revision of PC DOS 7.0 reporting itself
as PC DOS 7.0 revision 1 (not 7.01 as seen all too often)
was marketted as PC DOS 2000. This last version can be
seen as a much fine-tuned version of MS-DOS 6.22, much
more stable, with several useful extensions including
Stacker 4, updated ant*-v*r*s software, improved memory
management (even including an early version of DRDOS' DPMS ,
a PCMCIA stack, IBM's REXX improved batch language,
Y2K fixes, and limited euro currency support.
PC DOS 2000 still does not support FAT32 and LBA, as
the kernel is still basically a DOS 6.xx level kernel
(somewhat comparable with DR-DOS 7.xx, which by default
even reports being a "DOS 6.0").
PC DOS is still commercially available directly from IBM,
even a localized German version exists.
There has also been an OEM version PC DOS 7.1 which did
support FAT32/LBA, but was apparently not based on the
FAT32/LBA code in MS-DOS 7.10. However, this rare OEM
version was never made available to end-users other
than as part of boot OS of some disk maintenance tools
of 3rd parties. So much for the original MS-DOS/PC DOS family.
A great alternative to this MS-DOS/PC DOS line is DR-DOS,
which, as you know, is an independently developed product
not based on the MS-DOS/PC DOS source code in any way.
Since, as you say, you stopped to keep track of new DOS
versions at MS-DOS 6.22 times, I might like to list the
DR-DOS versions since then here.
In late 1993, early 1994, there was Novell DOS 7, the
famous DR DOS 6.0 successor with pre-emptive multitasking
with virtual DOS machines and built-in peer-to-peer
networking capabilities. It also had a more advanced
Backup software and came with an ant*-v*r*s package.
Novell DOS 7 saw 16 updates up to update 15.2 in 1996-01.
Then, in fall 1996, Caldera took over the product and
released OpenDOS 7.01 in 1997 (after which *this*
mailing list is named).
Caldera OpenDOS 7.01 was updated to OpenDOS 7.02 Betas
in late 1997 and released as Caldera DR-DOS 7.02 in early
1998. After several minor updates, the final version of
DR-DOS 7.03 was released in 1998-01 almost immediately
before the Caldera UK development center, where DR-DOS
has been developed, was closed. Besides several unreleased
internal versions such as DR-DOS "WinGlue" and "WinBolt",
which played an important role in the court case Caldera vs.
Microsoft between 1997 and 2000, as they were able to run
the Windows 4.xx GUI on top of DR-DOS, there have been
various OEM versions including DR-DOS 7.04, 7.05, and
a considerably different DR-DOS 7.06 issue. Neither of them
was released or even targetted at end-users, but at least
DR-DOS 7.04/7.05 is unoffically available on various websites
now. 7.04 and higher all support FAT32/LBA to a varying
extent, but, to be honest, neither of them was "end-user-
ready" as they all have had several limitations (hm, in
this respect quite similar to IBM's OEM PC DOS 7.1 - after
all that's the matter with OEM versions, which often have
to fulfill other requirements than those important for
desktop users...)
When the US-based Caldera Thin Clients subsidiary renamed
itself into Lineo and switched to Linux based embedded
systems (Embedix), unfortunately they basically "trashed"
DR-DOS, although it remained commercially available up
to 2001, at least if you begged enough to buy it... ;->
Very unfortunate story...
Well, meanwhile Caldera, Caldera Systems (the OpenLinux
subsidiary which fusioned with SCO, which in turn now has
much bad publicity for their rather odd claims that Linux
would infringe some of their copyrights.), Caldera Thin
Clients, and (AFAIK) Lineo do no longer exist.
But in 2002 a new startup named DeviceLogics has taken
over DR-DOS from Ray Noorda's Canopy Group. And DeviceLogics
is currently working on the next DR-DOS issue...
> I am a blind DOS user still working with the ancient MS-DOS 6.22,
> German version. (Reason: I was 58 when I got blind, use speech
> output; Jaws for Windows is too expensive for me).
My suggestion is to update to either PC DOS 2000 or DR-DOS 7.03.
Technically, DR-DOS 7.03 is way more interesting and powerful,
but may also be a bit more difficult to set up if you don't
have someone at hands to ask - but you can always ask here
in this forum (I guess most of the DOS "die-hards" are still
on board, although most remain silent most of the time...)
However, using DR-DOS' multi-OS loader LOADER you could
install both MS-DOS 6.22 and DR-DOS 7.03, or PC DOS 2000
and DR-DOS 7.03 onto the same system if you install DR-DOS
after one of the other systems (some tricks are necessary
to combine DR-DOS with PC DOS due to the naming conflict
of the system files (in both OS they are named IBMBIO.COM
and IBMDOS.COM), but using SYS /DR:703 you will be able
to work around this problem), so you can switch back and
forth between them as you see fit. I'm pretty sure, the
forthcoming DR-DOS will also be interesting for you, but
it is not yet available, so the best desktop DR-DOS you
can get at the moment is 7.03.
In regard to the command processor (you use JP Software's
4DOS 5.50 instead of COMMAND.COM), I suggest to update 4DOS
to the current version to get the most out of your system:
4DOS 7.50 build 115 as of 2003-09.
Compared to 5.50 it has hundreds of small feature enhancements
and a few dozen major new features. 4DOS 7.50 runs fine under
any DOS, including PC DOS 2000 and DR-DOS 7.03.
In fact, some new 4DOS 7.xx features were developed in particular
with DR-DOS in mind.
See http://www.jpsoft.com for 4DOS details and downloads or
mail to <support AT jpsoft DOT com> for any further information in
regard to 4DOS in case you cannot navigate their web-site.
IMHO, upgrading 4DOS is money well spent as your issue of
4DOS is /really/ old.
> Reading all the mail traffic to above subject, I wonder if
> perhaps the German version 6.22 really could be different
> from the English vs, especially concerning COPY, MOVE or
> XCOPY commands???
In fact, some MS-DOS OEM versions had some of the option
letters localized as well, but fortunately, these versions
remained very rare. I'm not aware of a German DOS version
of this kind. In general, the option letters are the same
no matter which localization you use.
> Q 1: Is there no environment variable named COPYCMD in other 6.22-vs?
Yes. The %DIRCMD% variable was introduced in MS-DOS/PC DOS 5.0
COMMAND.COM, and %COPYCMD% was introduced with MS-DOS 6.20 and
PC DOS 6.3 COMMAND.COM and XCOPY.COM. It exists in all later
versions of MS-DOS and PC DOS, but not in DR-DOS.
DR-DOS COMMAND.COM traditionally used the DIR /C and /R options
in order to change the DIR defaults. This feature existed even
in the DR DOS 3.xx series and can be used to "emulate" the
%DIRCMD% functionality for COMMAND.COM - not for DR-DOS XDIR,
though. A future issue of DR-DOS COMMAND.COM will most probably
be much enhanced in regard to this.
%DIRCMD% and %COPYCMD% can also be emulated by other means
when you use 4DOS instead of COMMAND.COM. The 4DOS 7.50
online help system (press F1 when you are at the 4DOS prompt)
has all the details.
In either case, "confirm before over-write" is in no way
a feature of the operating system, but simply a design
decision in the implementation of the DOS applications
involved, in your case, COMMAND.COM (COPY) or an external
DOS application like XCOPY.COM or XCOPY.EXE.
If you prefer the MS XCOPY style under DR-DOS you could
rename the DR XCOPY to DRXCOPY, put the MX XCOPY in your
path, and set up SETVER to contain a version entry for
the MS XCOPY. Example in case you use the MS-DOS 6.22 XCOPY
under DR-DOS:
c:\drdos.703\setver.exe c:\msdos.622\xcopy.exe 6.22
You cannot disable the internal COPY other than by replacing
COMMAND.COM (for example by 4DOS), however, depending on what
you want to do, you may succeed in using DOSKEY to define an
alias for COPY which would use an external copy utility
with similar command line switches and the desired confirm
before overwrite functionality instead of the internal
COPY. Example:
DOSKEY copy=c:\utl\copytool\mycopy.exe $*
(DOSKEY does not work under 4DOS unless you would set
SETDOS /L0 at the 4DOS prompt, but for one 4DOS has
more powerful aliasing using the ALIAS command, and
then the original overwrite problem does not exist
using 4DOS instead of COMMAND.COM, anyway.
> Q 2: How differs the command line syntax of XCOPY in other than
> German vs?
It does not differ between localized versions, but between
different DOS implementations.
Greetings,
Matthias
--
<mailto:Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>; <mailto:mpaul AT drdos DOT org>
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mpdokeng.html; http://mpaul.drdos.org
"Programs are poems for computers."
- Raw text -