Message-ID: <3956500B.C2E3A355@pysmatic.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:31:40 -0700
From: Neal <lbneal AT pysmatic DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Opiniom on Different versins of DOS
References: <002301bfde9b$eaf539a0$0abf06d5 AT mad> <3956310C DOT C5EA4DC5 AT pysmatic DOT net> <39564358 DOT AE20BEC6 AT internet1 DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

I rated on my experiences as I went thru using each version and the news of the day....

As usual any thing from MS with a 0 at the end is always broken(really a BETA)...

MS-DOS 3.2 didn't work, only 3.21 was any good.
MS-DOS 4.01 w/patch was pretty good, 4.01 was still broken.
MS -DOS 6.0 was really bad, but at 6.22 they finally got it right.

Open DOS 7.01 was a early version of Novell DOS 7.0 w/o the bugs fixed.
 Novell DOS 7 with the last patches is much better than OpenDOS 7.01.

MS-DOS 5.00 is notoriously bad, I'm not familiar with 5.01 or 5.02.

After MS and IBM split the DOS from each is different since IBM does their own
now...

The list is presented to "suggest" ways to avoid unnecessary problems when using an
older DOS or even a newer one.  Folks that have never used DOS, should be kinda
steered away from bad versions, so they don't have unnecessary problems :-)

Neal

fernande AT internet1 DOT net wrote:

> Neal,
>
> I visited your dosonly sites and have questions regarding the following
> quoted material.  Please don't take this as negative criticism.  I am
> very interested in hearing your thoughts and resigning.
>
> > Good DOS: PC-DOS 3.1 & 3.3, MS-DOS 3.1, 3.3, 4.01 & 6.22, DR-DOS 6.0 & 7.02, Novell DOS 7.
> > Bad DOS: MS-DOS 3.2, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0, DR-DOS 3.41 & 5.0, PC-DOS 3.2, 4.0, 5.0 & 6.0.
> > Iffy DOS: DR-DOS 7.03, OpenDOS 7.01, MS-DOS 7 (hidden in Win95).
>
> I am wondering how you arrived at some of your conclusions on the
> different versions.  I have been under the impression that anything
> under 3.3 was "bad", or at least not worth the trouble, and 4.x was
> really bad.  Also that 7.03 of DR-DOS was well kinda iffy, like you say
> :-)  I don't think I have ever heard anything wrong with any companies
> 6.x, with the exception of MS 6.2...I think.  Plus isn't Novel DOS 7 the
> same as OpenDOS 7.01? Furthermore, I thought DOS 5.xx was supposed to be
> a really good older version to have...I used IBM DOS 5.02, and thought
> it was great.
>
> Chad Fernandez
> Michigan, USA