China DOS Union

Reading it all in one go, I feel that the webmaster is really dedicated. He almost replies to every post. I admire and respect him!

The knowledge is very extensive, which determines the visit volume of this site!

I have been in contact with DOS for less than two years, and I just started to be infatuated with it recently. I come to take a look in my spare time and feel a kind of power!

Thank you all for your contributions! Your actions will benefit everyone for life!!

Urgent!
What to do if there are no floppy disks!
Waiting online!

I'm using XP, and the C drive is in NTFS format. It seems I still need to convert it...

The following is the speech of andychau on 2004-3-21 0:07:24:
Urgent!
What should I do without a floppy disk!
Waiting online!

What does it matter if there is no floppy disk? Even without a floppy disk, you can use a hard disk or a CD-ROM. Have you read this article:

http://newdos.yginfo.net/dosart32.htm

Thank you, moderator!

Okay.

Super Moderator: I think I'm just a novice DOS enthusiast! I really want to learn from you!
May I ask how to learn it well? Why can't I use unformat when I use it? Please give me your advice! Thank you!!!

The following is the statement quoted by Wengier on 2003-10-18 21:06:21:

The following is the statement quoted by Listening on 2003-10-18 17:51:23:
I am an XP, NTFS user. I downloaded the CD version of DOS7.1, burned it to a CD, booted from the CD drive, pressed SETUP.BAT, and when reaching the part where you choose to agree or not agree, after clicking NEXT, the screen said it couldn't be installed. The meaning seemed to be that FAT didn't support something.
Please give guidance.

It means that DOS must be installed on a FAT partition, and the C drive can't be NTFS. Please first convert the C drive to FAT format, or use VFLOPPY.

"The statement 'Please first convert the C drive to NTFS format' should be 'Please first convert the C drive to FAT format'"

I often use DOS. A few months ago, I used MS-DOS 7.10. I can be certain that there are compatibility issues with this software, (it occurs with some old and new software), unlike the DOS in WIN98SE. Here I put forward everyone's opinions.

yanone: It can be seen that you don't understand the difference between a DOS boot disk and a full DOS installation version. It wasn't there a few months ago (I know that the super MS-DOS 7.10 boot disk has some compatibility issues in some systems, but that's a problem with various DOS drivers added, not the problem of DOS itself; and this DOS installation version is completely different). And you should know that the DOS in Win98SE is a special version of MS-DOS 7.10. Just from this point, it can be seen that your words are self-contradictory.

Maybe you should know that the MS-DOS 7.10 boot disk has been released on foreign websites for a long time. Maybe what you said (this DOS installation version is completely different), but in the past two weeks, I have visited this website many times and tried to download it many times without giving up, but I still went back to the DOS of Win98SE (I also carefully looked at the code of MS-DOS 7.10 personally), and can be sure that this MS-DOS 7.10 is definitely not the DOS of Win98SE (it should be earlier).

yanone: You should take a good look at the previous posts in the forum to know what's going on. The DOS you're using for Win98SE is actually a special version of MS-DOS 7.10, which is of the same origin as this MS-DOS 7.10.

What do you mean by its compatibility issues? Can you give some examples? Note that the environment must be the same, for example, you can't have one loading EMM386 and the other not loading EMM386.

Sorry, I'm a newbie here. It will really take some time for me to browse the entire website content. It should be that everyone's usage environment and software are different, so the conclusions are also different. Because of my personal needs, I will spare no time to test each DOS I can find. If there is a problem, I will give up this DOS and look for a new one. Now I'm really lazy to go back to re-find the problem. But to post here, I really need evidence. I will go back and re-test my current 300 DOS software when I have time, and then respond to the problem accurately. Thanks for the advice.

The following is a quote from yanone on 2004-4-9 5:07:44:
Sorry, I'm a newbie here. It really takes me some time to browse the entire website content. It should be that different people have different usage environments and software, so the conclusions are also different. Because of my personal needs, I will spare no time to test every DOS I can find. If there is a problem, I will give up this DOS and look for a new one. Now it's really lazy to go back to re - find the problem. But to post here, I really need to have evidence. I will come back to re - test my current 300 DOS software when I have time for this MS - DOS 7.10 and so on, and then respond to the problem exactly. Thank you for your advice.

After the installation of this DOS installation version, most of the loaded programs are self - contained in DOS, so the compatibility should be relatively good. But pay attention that in the test, it is best not to load some drivers, especially pay attention to the two drivers EMM386 and DOSLFN which are automatically loaded during the default installation (of course, they are still optional). Otherwise, it will not be possible to determine whether it is a problem of DOS or these auxiliary DOS drivers (for example, DOSLFN is a DOS long - filename driver, but sometimes it will conflict with some programs, but this is obviously not related to DOS itself). You are welcome to test, but the test conditions should be the same, otherwise it is obviously unfair. In addition, some old DOS software itself has some upward compatibility problems (such as problems that occur only in relatively new systems), such as being unable to run normally when there is a large memory in the system, etc. This is naturally a problem of these old programs themselves, not a problem of DOS. These factors should also be considered in the test.

I test each set of DOS absolutely under the same environment. When converting from FAT16 to FAT32, indeed some old software will have problems (especially when UMB with EMM386 is mounted). My understanding should be that it is because the memory requirement of the FAT32 DOS System increases? But I have been using FAT16 for too long and really can't give it up. Therefore, I am currently looking for the most compatible FAT32 DOS. Are you the moderator? Sorry ^_^ I didn't read the forum clearly and asked you for the SYS.COM of PC-DOS 7.10. Thank you ^_^