PDA

View Full Version : a good vesion of dos for a turbo xt clone



redhawk579
May 23rd, 2011, 06:30 PM
pardon me if someone already posted this but,what is a good version
of dos for a turbo xt clone with :
cpu:intel 8088 10mhz
ram:640k
graphics:vga
if anyone can help dont hesitate to post ;)

Maverick1978
May 23rd, 2011, 07:50 PM
My opinion - DOS 5.00... you can run higher versions, but why? They eat more memory, and their main advantages - to me, memory enhancements and use of himem/emm386, aren't applicable to an XT.

The main question for me is which FLAVOR of DOS 5.00? DR-DOS, MS-DOS, PC DOS, etc... personally, I use PC DOS on my IBM's. It's an authenticity thing for me :)

Dave Farquhar
May 24th, 2011, 05:53 AM
I agree there's no reason to go any higher than DOS 5 on an XT-class machine. For that matter, DOS 3.3 could be advantageous because of its lower memory footprint. But I'd probably go with DOS 5 to have the nice full-screen editor.

glitch
May 24th, 2011, 05:58 AM
But I'd probably go with DOS 5 to have the nice full-screen editor.

You can also use UW's PICO editor under DOS. I've got a copy that will run standalone on a standard 8088. I like it better than EDIT.COM anyway, not only in the UI department, but also because it doesn't require QBASIC to run.

I go with DOS 5 on my XT-class machines for interoperability with external devices. I use a SyQuest EZFlyer with many of them, and need the FAT16 support.

MikeS
May 24th, 2011, 12:26 PM
You can also use UW's PICO editor under DOS. I've got a copy that will run standalone on a standard 8088. I like it better than EDIT.COM anyway, not only in the UI department, but also because it doesn't require QBASIC to run.The newer version of edit.com (04/23/99) is also a standalone program and doesn't use QBASIC any longer; it seems pretty flexible regarding DOS versions so I'd think that it would probably get along with DOS 5 just fine. Try it, and let us know.

deathshadow
May 24th, 2011, 12:31 PM
I'd go with 3.3 unless you really need larger hard drive support -- as mentioned it's smaller. If you don't need support for more than 16 meg partitions, I'd even give dos 2.11 a good hard look, since it can leave you with in excess of 590k free once up and running -- it's what I run on my Tandy 1K's for that very reason.

Funny how everything says 10 megs is the limit for 2.x when it supports up to 16 megs just fine, just as 3.x tops out at 32 megs.

tezza
May 24th, 2011, 02:21 PM
Yes, I agree with others. 3.3 or 5.0. Personally I'd go for MS-DOS 3.3 with some kind of public-domain full screen editor in my utilities bag.

Tez

Maverick1978
May 24th, 2011, 04:21 PM
FWIW, Softkey Editor (se.exe) was always my favorite full-screen DOS editor. 94kb in size, super-powerful with function-key "ribbons" on the bottom for all sorts of things... like line-drawing and other ascii characters to dress up your batch files, pop-up ascii code charts, search-and-replace, full file functions such as append, overwrite, automatic over-write protections, and much more... sad-but-true: I still use it on my windows machines to this day for a down and dirty batch editor. Though Notebook++ is right up there as well.

I *do* wish I could find a registered copy, however... it was WELL worth the money back when it was in development, only as a young teenager, money was very hard to come by for me.

*edit - turns out that the author apparently still lives in the same place as what was in his registration email... Might be worth the cost of a stamp to see what he's up to, since I can't seem to locate a current email address or company website. Would LOVE it if he'd still let me register the software! :)

redhawk579
May 24th, 2011, 04:54 PM
thx guys

redhawk579
May 24th, 2011, 04:58 PM
could you pm me a link to where i can get pico