PDA

View Full Version : DOS 3.31 vs 6.22



alank2
May 4th, 2017, 05:31 AM
I am going to build a XTIDE today and finally get a "fixed drive" in the compaq portable I've been repairing/restoring. I've been using Compaq DOS 3.31, but 6.22 is what I almost always use for other tasks. I only have 640K (no umb), but I was surprised that the difference between the two versions was only 9K. 3.31 uses 50K and 6.22 uses 59K according to NU 4.0 SI. Are there any other downsides to just using 6.22 besides the 9K? Some software won't run on it, etc?

Bassoonbloke
May 4th, 2017, 05:47 AM
Hi There,

I now have Dos 6.22 running on my standard 640k Compaq III without any issues. I used it to have access to all of its handy extras and the fact that it will happily work with my 520mb HDD that I installed (as the original 20mb one had died completely).
I guess it depends on what you are planning to try to run on your portable and how memory hungry it is.

Alan.

Stone
May 4th, 2017, 06:37 AM
Are there any other downsides to just using 6.22 besides the 9K? Some software won't run on it, etc?C'mon... everything that runs on 3.31 also runs on 6.22! :-)

Xacalite
May 4th, 2017, 06:40 AM
Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 was commonly used on Compaq boxes back in the era, so if you want to restore your Portable to its original form, this version is probably the most appropriate.
Otherwise, it doesn't really matter, even if you encounter some brain-dead software which refuses to run under DOS >3 you can probably fool it with SETVER.

alank2
May 4th, 2017, 07:04 AM
It sounds like 6.22 is going to be it! Only thing I'll miss is that click noise from the compaq dos unless there is some tiny tsr that does it too.

SomeGuy
May 4th, 2017, 10:06 AM
A utility for enabling or disabling the key click is in this thread: http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?53312-Compaq-Portable-Plus-how-to-remove-entire-shell

vwestlife
May 4th, 2017, 02:11 PM
Try IBM PC DOS 7.0 / 2000. It uses the least amount of RAM of any version of DOS since 3.3.

Free RAM (out of 640K) reported by CHKDSK on a clean boot:

PC DOS 2.00 ... 630,672 bytes
PC DOS 2.10 ... 630,672
PC DOS 3.10 ... 616,432
MS-DOS 3.10 ... 616,432
PC DOS 3.21 ... 609,392
PC DOS 3.30 ... 600,528
MS-DOS 3.30 ... 600,368
IBM DOS 5.00 ... 593,328
MS-DOS 5.00 ... 593,328
MS-DOS 6.00 ... 592,256
IBM DOS 6.10 ... 593,056
MS-DOS 6.22 ... 592,256
PC DOS 6.30 ... 593,024
PC DOS 7.00 Revision 0 ... 593,840
PC DOS 2000 (7.00 Revision 1) ... 593,760

deathshadow
May 4th, 2017, 08:45 PM
I'll second vwestlife's suggestion of PC-DOS 7 -- BUT -- For me I always have a set of questions I ask myself...

Do I need support for partitions larger than 32mb? Yes? Use 6.22 or PC-DOS 7.

Does the system have more than 640k of RAM and a processor with HMA/UMB support? Yes? Use 6.22 or PC-DOS 7.

Do I need every last drop of RAM on a 8088/8086? Yes? Use DOS 3.x or even 2.x if you can get away with it.

Like my 128k PCJr? I stick with DOS 2.1 since that's true to period and newer versions offer ZERO improvements for that platform.

Tandy 1000SX with a 44 meg RLL hard drive? DOS 3.3 no question...

XT Clone with the 2 gig SCSI drive hooked up via a ST-02? Damned straight that's running PC-DOS 7 since 62 partitions would be impractical at best, leave me without access to two-thirds the drive at worst (run out of drive letters). Sure I could use some of the driver TSR's to support larger partitions, but that's just wasting even more memory than a version of DOS that supports that drive size would.

Even though by the time the bloody thing boots up I'm stuck with around 540k of free space after network drivers, CD drivers, and TSR's since again, 8088. Though for my purposes that's plenty.

The MOMENT you hit a meg of RAM on a 386/higher though, there's no question, go with the more recent OS and leverage those UMB's and the HMA.

commodorejohn
May 4th, 2017, 09:08 PM
XT Clone with the 2 gig SCSI drive hooked up via a ST-02? Damned straight that's running PC-DOS 7 since 62 partitions would be impractical at best, leave me without access to two-thirds the drive at worst (run out of drive letters).
:lol: Reminds me of the Apple IIGS I used to have, which had a quirky SCSI controller that hard-partitioned large drives into separate 32MB partitions, and the 800MB drive I initially had hooked up to it which filled up the entire desktop with drive icons...

KC9UDX
May 4th, 2017, 09:43 PM
It sounds like 6.22 is going to be it! Only thing I'll miss is that click noise from the compaq dos unless there is some tiny tsr that does it too.

That was one of the first things I wrote when I started PC programming. I assumed most people did, because Exec-PC was rife with other peoples' same utilities.

HoJoPo
May 4th, 2017, 10:33 PM
:lol: Reminds me of the Apple IIGS I used to have, which had a quirky SCSI controller that hard-partitioned large drives into separate 32MB partitions, and the 800MB drive I initially had hooked up to it which filled up the entire desktop with drive icons...

When I was setting up a IIgs with Focus IDE interface and 1G drive, it created 32 partitions and I didn't think to change it... initializing / naming all of them was a pain. I re-did it with only 8 partitions, that seems like plenty. :)

Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 supports up to 504MB hard drive partitions if I recall correctly, so for a moderate sized drive it should give the best memory / hard drive size trade off.