DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Computing.Net > Forums > Windows 3.1 > DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Original Message

Name: avp_micro
Date: September 25, 2005 at 17:46:49 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta
OS: 3.11
CPU/Ram: enough

Comment:

I managed to get a copy of DOS 7.00 BETA. Is there any major difference between 6.0 and 7.00B ?
Thanks for your input.

Report Offensive Message For Removal

Response Number 1

Name: name
Date: September 25, 2005 at 18:22:58 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

What do you mean""DOS 7.00 BETA""
Who made this?
Microsoft never made a "DOS 7.00"

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 2

Name: avp_micro
Date: September 25, 2005 at 20:50:42 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Well if microsoft never released it then i gusse its ok to give copys out considering it "abandonware" and not under copyright.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 3

Name: jboy
Date: September 25, 2005 at 20:58:37 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

MS-DOS Version 7 (C)Copyright 1981-1994 Microsoft Corp Licensed Material - Property of Microsoft All rights reserved
Includes DoubleSpace.
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 4

Name: avp_micro
Date: September 25, 2005 at 21:05:11 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

I didn't relize it was rare or not released i got a whole bunch of operating systems off my buddy about a year back. tell me if any of these are rare.
ATT UNIX (not english)
CMP 86 OS
DOS 1.1, 1.25, 2.1, 2.20, 3.2, 3.3, 3.3a, 3.3r, 4.0, 4.01, 5.0, 6.0, 6.2, 6.22,7.00b
lineo os
OS/2
PC goes OS
quarterdesk OS
Tandy OS
Windows 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 2.30, 286, 386, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 3.11wg
Lindows sneak peak

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 5

Name: avp_micro
Date: September 25, 2005 at 21:08:37 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

alright well maybe Murphy was an optimist can tell me the differance between 6.0 and 7.00b?

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal


Looking for win 3.11 & DOS 6.0 in FRENCH need win 3.11 & dos 6.0 .... i need to find win 3.1 and dos 6.0 dos 6.0 to win98? Update DOS 6.0 to 6.22?	DOS 5.0 Ms-Dos 6.22 in spanish WIN 3.1, DOS 6.22 disks download here plz help me out with win 3.11 and dos 6. win 3.1/dos 6.0 format HD

Response Number 6

Name: name
Date: September 25, 2005 at 22:12:34 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

""Well if microsoft never released it then i gusse its ok to give copys out considering it "abandonware" and not under copyright.""

There's no such thing, and, I can assure you, that EVERYTHING that Microshaft came out with is perpetualy copyrighted.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 7

Name: plainandsimple
Date: September 25, 2005 at 23:51:30 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

MS-DOS 6.22 was the last standalone version
Fat12/16 support and 8.3 file names
Windows 95/95A/95 OSR2 had a version of MS-DOS as a subsytem equivelent to version 7.0x basically the same as 6.22 except can access more than 64MB memory and many other tweaks.
Windows 95 OSR2.1/2.5 & 98 had a version of MS-DOS as a subsytem equivelent to version 7.1x basically the same as 7.0x except added FAT32 support and many other tweaks.
After 6.22 M$ never released a standalone retail version and as quite rightly is stated to use any version of M$-DOS/Windows you require the appropriate licence.
FAT32 Support in Windows 95

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 8

Name: jboy
Date: September 26, 2005 at 10:11:43 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Sure, 622 was the last version released/sold.
M$-DOS 7 beta exists, and the timeline puts it between v6.20 & v6.22 - don't believe there's any advantage over 622, and since it is a beta version, may be buggy
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 9

Name: dominicus
Date: September 28, 2005 at 20:38:10 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Well, it is for all intents and purposes a 32 bit version of dos 6.2...comes with the very last version of dosshell, too.
I used it for about two years until there was some kind of incompatibility (i can't remember which, now)- but overall, it is remarkably bug-free...
only problem is it only likes windows 3.1 as a shell..it's hard coded to boot windows automatically..in order to get it to boot to just a dos prompt..you have to enter "autowin off" at the prompt..and repeat the command every time it starts trying to boot into windows again.
So you better make sure you have the full Dos 7.0 beta..with the autowin.exe or autowin.com..can't quite remember which...

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 10

Name: jboy
Date: September 28, 2005 at 22:23:27 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Looks like AUTOWIN.COM
* Make sure your AUTOEXEC.BAT does not load Windows. You have to load Windows with the AutoWin-command: AUTOWIN ON
AUTOWIN OFF
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 11

Name: XpUser
Date: September 29, 2005 at 13:59:32 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Maybe he meant IBM PC DOS Version 7?
i_XpUser

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 12

Name: expert01
Date: September 29, 2005 at 18:28:26 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Note: If someone owns a copy of software they gain rights to all previous versions of the software. If you own XP, you can legally use 2000, NT, ME, 98, 95, 3.1, and DOS.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 13

Name: jboy
Date: September 29, 2005 at 18:58:37 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Who told you that??
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 14

Name: jboy
Date: September 29, 2005 at 23:02:16 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

.. anyhow, fairy tales aside, I'm pretty much convinced this 'beta' is a (somewhat) elaborate hoax.
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 15

Name: plainandsimple
Date: September 30, 2005 at 01:19:06 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

M$ License for home users in a nutshell means you have the right to use the software you have a license for, you do not really own it.
Beta, shareware, warez, unsupported are all poppycock, everything has a license for use even Open Source.............
Have you got PCDOS2000 yet ?
http://www.provantage.com/buy-22019015-ibm-software-pc-dos-2000-shopping.htm

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 16

Name: veganalex
Date: September 30, 2005 at 14:56:30 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

msdos 7.0beta, has been extracted from windows 95 or 98, i can't remember where it is on the net, but it was not an official release by m$.
REMEMBER - win95&98 are only GUIs for msdos, basically it's just msdos 7, with win 95 ontop.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 17

Name: jboy
Date: September 30, 2005 at 18:02:57 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

Wow - *thanks*! Win95 runs ontop of DOS - that is quite a revelation
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Response Number 18

Name: plainandsimple
Date: October 1, 2005 at 08:37:36 Pacific
Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Reply: (edit)

JHC it is 10 years since W95 came out in MG 1995 and just realised it is a DOS GUI, bless my cotton socks!!!!!!!!!

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Windows 3.1 problem

config setting

Use following form to reply to current message:

Name: From My Computing.Net Settings E-Mail: From My Computing.Net Settings Subject: DOS 6.0 vs 7.0 Beta

Comments:

  Homepage URL (*): 
Homepage Title (*): 
         Image URL:

Win2003 Server - Running Program

Permissions - removing the ability

USB HD does not show in windows.

HP Recovery Drive Full

MSN Hotmail Error???