What's the most efficient DOS version to run on a IBM PS2 model 30?

[Red_Donkey]

Is there any reason to run anything older than 6.22 on an IBM PS2 model 30? Does it run faster with older DOS versions?

For nostalgia, I probably should run original IBM-DOS, but I like the Scandisk features (think it's called) and undelete of the newer version.

What are you guys running?

 

[commodorejohn]

I've run 3.3, 5, and 6.22 all the way back on a 5150 without any really noticeable performance issues; there really isn't a whole lot of difference beyond features and memory usage in my experience, probably because DOS doesn't really do a hell of a lot in the first place. I usually stick with 3.3 on pre-386 machines and 6.22 on anything later, but you can pretty much do whatever.

 

[1ST1]

If you want it originally, then USE PC-DOS, not MS-DOS.

 

[WBST]

Is there any reason to run anything older than 6.22 on an IBM PS2 model 30? Does it run faster with older DOS versions?

For nostalgia, I probably should run original IBM-DOS, but I like the Scandisk features (think it's called) and undelete of the newer version.

What are you guys running?

PC-DOS 6.n, 7.00, 7.01 (Y2K upgrade) and 2000 (same as 7.01) all have much more efficient memory-management drivers, utilities and features for a 30-286. If a base 8086 Model 30 then the options may be more limited.

NOTES
I've never needed a non-zero STACKS spec.
FILES, FCBS, BUFFERS should all be tuned to your needs, possibly using a Menu-Driven CONFIG.SYS (I can supply a template, to start from).

 

[Malc]

I use DOS 6.22 in all my old IBM's, It's what i prefer and have done for years, I don't do a full install, Just the files required.

 

[maxtherabbit]

PC-DOS 6.n, 7.00, 7.01 (Y2K upgrade) and 2000 (same as 7.01) all have much more efficient memory-management drivers, utilities and features for a 30-286. If a base 8086 Model 30 then the options may be more limited.

NOTES
I've never needed a non-zero STACKS spec.
FILES, FCBS, BUFFERS should all be tuned to your needs, possibly using a Menu-Driven CONFIG.SYS (I can supply a template, to start from).

+1

PC-DOS 2000 is what I run on my 286
(PC-DOS 5 on my V20 5150)

 

[Stone]

I use DOS 6.22 in all my old IBM's, It's what i prefer and have done for years, I don't do a full install, Just the files required.

FWIW, I never do a full install! We'll I did the first time I used it but that was also the last time. There's no need to do that, so I don't do it.

 

[Trixter]

+1

PC-DOS 2000 is what I run on my 286
(PC-DOS 5 on my V20 5150)

I've been impressed enough by IBM PC DOS 2000 that I run it on all my IBM-branded systems. (The only part of it not Y2K-compliant is RAMBOOST, so I usually skip that.)

 

[maxtherabbit]

I've been impressed enough by IBM PC DOS 2000 that I run it on all my IBM-branded systems. (The only part of it not Y2K-compliant is RAMBOOST, so I usually skip that.)

I would too if I was being purely objective. Only reason I have PC-DOS 5 on the 5150 is aesthetics

 

[pcdosretro]

For any 8086/8088 PC you are better off with DOS 3.x since the later versions will use more memory:
DOS 3.0 was very short lived so skip that
You need DOS 3.2 if you have a 720KB 3.5" floppy drive or want XCOPY and REPLACE
You need DOS 3.3 if you have a 1.44MB 3.5" floppy drive or need NLS support
Forget DOS 4.0 that was noticeably bigger and the initial version was buggy (BUFFERS=/X to load them in EMS didn't work on many non-IBM XMA systems though this was fixed in DOS 4.01)

For any 286 or later PC you are better off with at least DOS 5.0 since you can you DOS=HIGH and save conventional memory. Of the DOS 5.0+ versions PC DOS 7.0 is the best since it is the most optimized - https://sites.google.com/site/pcdosretro/dosmods

The original PS/2 model 30 was an 8086 PC. It came with PC DOS 3.3 which was current at the time but it really only needed PC DOS 3.2 since it had 720KB 3.5" floppy drives unlike the other models which had 1.44MB floppy drives (also the model 30 had MCGA as opposed to VGA).

 

[Trixter]

Only reason I have PC-DOS 5 on the 5150 is aesthetics

If you were really concerned with aesthetics, you'd run IBM PC DOS 2.x ;-)

For any 8086/8088 PC you are better off with DOS 3.x since the later versions will use more memory

Yes, but for any 808x PC that wants/needs FAT16, of all 4.x+ versions released, IBM PC DOS 7.x (nee 2000) uses the least RAM (which I believe we have you to thank for?), at least according to http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?29636-Favorite-version-of-x86-DOS&p=215078#post215078

 

[pcdosretro]

Yes, but for any 808x PC that wants/needs FAT16, of all 4.x+ versions released, IBM PC DOS 7.x (nee 2000) uses the least RAM (which I believe we have you to thank for?), at least according to http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?29636-Favorite-version-of-x86-DOS&p=215078#post215078

Yes I was responsible for the kernel and core DOS work on PC DOS 7.0. PC DOS 2000 (PC DOS 7.0 revision 1) was done several years later in 1998 by someone else. It was really more of a marketing thing to jump on the Y2K hype of the time, DOS was always Y2K compatible (supporting years 1980-2079 though the year field in the directory entry is 7 bits thereby supporting 1980-2107). The kernel (IBMDOS.COM) is actually the same, only the revision byte changed (0 to 1). IBMBIO.COM has extra code pertaining to systems which don't properly increment the CMOS century byte which is unnecessary for 99% of systems thus PC DOS 2000 should use slightly more memory than PC DOS 7.0 and I confirmed this in my own tests. If I had implemented this I would have checked for the few bad systems during initialization and handled it there without any extra resident code. I give my analysis of PC DOS 2000 here - https://sites.google.com/site/pcdosretro/pcdos2000diffs

Keep in mind that for each version of DOS the kernel is usually bigger than the previous version (PC DOS 7.0 is the exception since I put a lot of effort into optimizing and cleaning up the code). There was a big jump from 3.3 to 4.0 but in 5.0+ you can load DOS in the HMA which of course isn't possible on a 8086/8088 so for that reason you're better off with DOS 3.x on those systems.

 

[maxtherabbit]

Yes I was responsible for the kernel and core DOS work on PC DOS 7.0. PC DOS 2000 (PC DOS 7.0 revision 1) was done several years later in 1998 by someone else. It was really more of a marketing thing to jump on the Y2K hype of the time, DOS was always Y2K compatible (supporting years 1980-2079 though the year field in the directory entry is 7 bits thereby supporting 1980-2107). The kernel (IBMDOS.COM) is actually the same, only the revision byte changed (0 to 1). IBMBIO.COM has extra code pertaining to systems which don't properly increment the CMOS century byte which is unnecessary for 99% of systems thus PC DOS 2000 should use slightly more memory than PC DOS 7.0 and I confirmed this in my own tests. If I had implemented this I would have checked for the few bad systems during initialization and handled it there without any extra resident code. I give my analysis of PC DOS 2000 here - https://sites.google.com/site/pcdosretro/pcdos2000diffs

Keep in mind that for each version of DOS the kernel is usually bigger than the previous version (PC DOS 7.0 is the exception since I put a lot of effort into optimizing and cleaning up the code). There was a big jump from 3.3 to 4.0 but in 5.0+ you can load DOS in the HMA which of course isn't possible on a 8086/8088 so for that reason you're better off with DOS 3.x on those systems.

thanks I love it

 

[WBST]

Keep in mind that for each version of DOS the kernel is usually bigger than the previous version (PC DOS 7.0 is the exception since I put a lot of effort into optimizing and cleaning up the code). There was a big jump from 3.3 to 4.0 but in 5.0+ you can load DOS in the HMA which of course isn't possible on a 8086/8088 so for that reason you're better off with DOS 3.x on those systems.

Even with UMBMONO.SYS etc. available? The "below the line" additional drivers can add memory availability even on an 8086-based PS/2-compatible, surely?

 

[pcdosretro]

Even with UMBMONO.SYS etc. available? The "below the line" additional drivers can add memory availability even on an 8086-based PS/2-compatible, surely?

Yes, the resident builtin device drivers and data area (IBMBIO.COM), DOS kernel and data (IBMDOS.COM) and resident portion of COMMAND.COM got a bit bigger in DOS 4.0. While some things were removed in DOS 5 (mostly some unused OS/2 compatibility stuff) there was simply more functionality. DOS 5 alleviated this by loading IBMBIO and IBMDOS code into the HMA. Without the HMA this all loads in conventional memory.

As for UMBMONO.SYS, keep in mind that the video memory you're using is usually slower than normal system memory. You could also use an old EMS board, some of those might have drivers allowing them to be used as upper memory though you would only see a 64KB block. Honestly you're better off using a 286 or later for old DOS stuff.

There were some old 286+ chipsets like the Chips and Technologies NEAT which allowed the mapping of A0000-AFFFF as conventional memory giving you 704KB but you couldn't use EGA or VGA. You could additionally map B0000-B7FFF (no monochrome mode 7) for 736KB.

 

[Eudimorphodon]

According to another thread the OP's computer appears to a be a Model 30-286 with a 386sx NOW! socket upgrade. If that's the case then any post-MS-DOS 5 version of DOS should pretty much be fine and a superior choice to DOS 3.x in terms of free memory, since the addition of the SX upgrade means that both high memory and UMBs are on the table.

For an 8086 Model 30 whether it's worth running a pre-DOS 5 version probably just boils down to how much about 8-10k of free RAM matters to you. (Loading DOS into an upper memory block is an option if you have a suitable RAM card, the Lo-Tech 1MB is the standard go-to for UMBs although I don't think you'll be able to use more than 64-128k of it.) I've settled on running 6.22 on my wimpy little Tandy that does have a UMB board because so far as I can tell there's zero performance (or memory utilization) difference between 5.0 and 6.22.

 

[Chuck(G)]

Just curious why there are no suggestions for DRI DOS and the like.

 

[WBST]

I replied about DR-DOS 5+, Netware Lite and NDOS 7+ in the thread linked by Trixter.

 

[pcdosretro]

According to another thread the OP's computer appears to a be a Model 30-286 with a 386sx NOW! socket upgrade. If that's the case then any post-MS-DOS 5 version of DOS should pretty much be fine and a superior choice to DOS 3.x in terms of free memory, since the addition of the SX upgrade means that both high memory and UMBs are on the table.

For an 8086 Model 30 whether it's worth running a pre-DOS 5 version probably just boils down to how much about 8-10k of free RAM matters to you. (Loading DOS into an upper memory block is an option if you have a suitable RAM card, the Lo-Tech 1MB is the standard go-to for UMBs although I don't think you'll be able to use more than 64-128k of it.) I've settled on running 6.22 on my wimpy little Tandy that does have a UMB board because so far as I can tell there's zero performance (or memory utilization) difference between 5.0 and 6.22.

Use PC DOS 7.0, it is smaller and faster. For example on a 386+ REP MOVSD is used to transfer data through the HMA transfer buffer when BUFFERS are in the HMA whereas other versions of REP MOVSW. PC DOS 7.0 can load DOS data tables into a UMB (DOSDATA=UMB), COMMAND.COM into a UMB (COMMAND.COM /H), parts of DOSKEY and SHARE into the HMA if DOS=HIGH. There are lots of other optimizations which add up. PC DOS 7.0 uses the least memory of any DOS 5.0+ version.

 

[Eudimorphodon]

PC DOS 7.0 can load DOS data tables into a UMB (DOSDATA=UMB), COMMAND.COM into a UMB (COMMAND.COM /H), parts of DOSKEY and SHARE into the HMA if DOS=HIGH. There are lots of other optimizations which add up. PC DOS 7.0 uses the least memory of any DOS 5.0+ version.

I'm currently using DOSMAX (in combination with USE!UMBS.SYS) on my V-20 machine and it already has the conventional RAM footprint down to 15k, I'm not sure how much more room there is left for optimization. (DOSMAX has also has support for loading DOS data like files, buffers, etc, data into UMB, and enhancements to HMA support don't really mean much on an XT class machines.) I am curious if it can actually beat that number, I suppose, but I'm still already sitting at about the same conventional RAM utilization as the DOS 2.1 that the machine shipped with for 6.22.