• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Difference MSDOS 4.01 and IBM PC DOS 4.01

R

Robin4

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
529
Can someone explain me what the difference between MS-DOS 4.01 and IBM PC DOS 4.01

Are they really the same as what options you have? Or is PC DOS more advancer?

What are the PROs and Cons of both osses.?

I really like to install version 4.01 on my 8088 system with a 84 MB SCSI harddrive..
Only DOS 3.31 limited me to 32 MB partition.. I want to make two 42MB partition instead..
I know i could look at DOS 5 or newer.. But want to keep it more nostalgic.

So dos 5 and later is out of the question. Are there obstacles i have to tackle, to get 42MB partitions getting running on that systems.
So what do i have to look at?
 
There are a few minor differences. PC-DOS has the BASICA that still depends on BASIC in ROM; MS-DOS has GWBASIC. IBM keeps VDISK while MS continued with RAMDRIVE. MSDOS incorporated SMARTDRV, HIMEM, and EMM386. IBM did not have matching utilities. I used the disk listings at PCJS for a reminder. It is possible that you have OS versions with different files.

Got a PS/2? Go with IBM 4.01 otherwise MS 4.01 is the way to go if you insist on using 4.01. If using a 286 or later, get DOS 5 or 6; the 64K saved through loading high will matter a lot.
 
From WinWorld:
IBM DOS 4.00 was IBM's first in-house development effort with DOS. Prior to this release, all DOS code had been managed by Microsoft on IBM's behalf (hence the parallel releases). With this version, IBM re-engineered the source and added their own enhancements. PC-DOS 4.00 adds support for drives up 2 gigabytes and a graphical DOS shell. The initial release of IBM PC-DOS 4.00 was extremely buggy. It was quickly followed up by a 4.01 update.
Click to expand...
 
I also red that DOS 4.01 had better support for Expended memory LIM 4.0
I would guess that would be beneficial when using an EMS memory card.
 
DOS 4.01 permitted the placement of buffers in EMS memory. That operation was the cause of data loss in 4.0; it was supposedly fixed in 4.01. I was never brave enough to experiment with it on the system I had with 4.01.
 
Robin4 said:
So dos 5 and later is out of the question. Are there obstacles i have to tackle, to get 42MB partitions getting running on that systems.
Click to expand...

I know this is a really silly question, but why not two 32MB partitions plus a 20MB partition with DOS 3.3? (And has been already noted, you *could* do what you want with some of the non-PC-DOS versions of 3.3, like Compaq DOS 3.31. Although if you're already breaking the 32MB barrier why partition it at all?)

Robin4 said:
I know i could look at DOS 5 or newer.. But want to keep it more nostalgic.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever ran DOS 4 on 8088 computers. (Well, obviously I can't say *nobody* did, but I sure don't remember anyone doing it.) If you had a hard disk bigger than 32MB during the brief window where DOS 4.0 was the "best" version out there it was almost certainly in a 286 or 386, and DOS 4 is a huge memory hog compared to PC-DOS 3.30 or Compaq DOS 3.31, using almost 30K more of RAM than either. It's actually worse than DOS 5 or later on machines where you can't load anything high. (The best 5-or-later DOS when it comes to memory usage is IBM's PC-DOS 7/2000, which only use about 8K more than DOS 3.3x.) Basically there's zero upside to running 4.x verses other options on this kind of hardware unless your entire goal is to say you're using the worst DOS on purpose.
 
Eudimorphodon said:
if you're already breaking the 32MB barrier why partition it at all?)
Click to expand...

One reason would be to create a more distinct separation between, say, programs and data. Without partitioning it's easier for the whole disk to become corrupted, since the FAT tables, etc. are all in one place. But if one partition gets corrupted, it's less likely that the other one gets corrupted too. Another reason might be to use one partition to backup the other as a quick restore option. (Of course a second, off-line backup is also recommended.)

DOS 4 is a huge memory hog compared to PC-DOS 3.30 or Compaq DOS 3.31, using almost 30K more of RAM than either.
Click to expand...

Robin4 said:
I really like to install version 4.01 on my 8088 system with a 84 MB SCSI harddrive..
Only DOS 3.31 limited me to 32 MB partition.. I want to make two 42MB partition instead..
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you mean you want to install 4.01 or feel you have to because you can't get the partitions you want with 3.3, and feel that 4.01 will be the lowest memory impact while being the closest to your nostalgic goal.

Are there obstacles i have to tackle, to get 42MB partitions getting running on that systems.
So what do i have to look at?
Click to expand...

If you're looking for a "nostalgic" DOS 3.3/4.01 era solution with low memory footprint, what about something like OnTrack Disk Manager? A device driver has to be installed (in the earliest/most nostalgic versions), but that would be the only memory hit necessary.
 
FYI, IBM DOS 4.01 still identifies itself as version 4.00. The only way to tell that it's 4.01 is by the number printed on the original disks and the date stamp of the files.

Same thing with the version built into ROM in early IBM PS/1s, claimed to actually be 4.02, but if you type VER it still says 4.00.
 
Here's vwestlifes conventional memory usage listing from the old vcf forum from 2012 https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/favorite-version-of-x86-dos.30155/page-2
Quote:-
"
I just went through all my boot disks, and ran CHKDSK on each one to display the amount of free RAM (out of 640K) on each one, using a totally clean boot (no CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT):

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

I also have an MS-DOS 4.01 boot disk, but not a copy of CHKDSK which will work with it, so I can't give it an accurate free RAM amount, but judging by what other utilities report,"
 
acgs said:
I'm not sure if you mean you want to install 4.01 or feel you have to because you can't get the partitions you want with 3.3, and feel that 4.01 will be the lowest memory impact while being the closest to your nostalgic goal.
Click to expand...

That's the rub with the second option, 4 is actually worse than 5 or later, so there's zero justification for using it to "save memory".(*) DOS 3.31 will give you bigger partitions with less RAM, or you could just jump all the way to PC-DOS 6 or 7 and get those big partitions plus more modern features with barely more RAM usage than 3.3x. (And a lot less than 4.)

(* the link has numbers for various versions of DOS 4, in addition to mostly similar numbers to @vwestlife's figures for the other versions. The only edition of DOS 4 that doesn't look terrible is a mysterious "4.01c" version, which seems to be some kind of patch release? In any case, it's not really better than DOS 5 and still worse than PC-DOS 6+.)

I kind of get this feeling that there's some kind of fringe movement out there to give DOS 4.x some love. I don't know if it's just sheer perversity (haha, I'm using the worst DOS ever!) or some misguided need to somehow salvage its reputation and prove it was unfairly maligned, but... it's just software, guys, it's not going to love you back. I mean, if you want to use it *because* it's fringe then more power to you, but objectively it's garbage, sorry. From a nostalgic/historical standpoint strictly speaking, sure, if you want to restore a computer to exactly match its "factory fresh" configuration it's the "correct" choice in a few cases, but I am seriously skeptical it was ever preinstalled on an XT unless a cantankerous customer specifically demanded it. Mostly it showed up on a few IBM PS/2s; FWIW, the 55SX we had at the office back then had 3.30 on it, despite having a 60MB hard drive.
 
Eudimorphodon said:
I kind of get this feeling that there's some kind of fringe movement out there to give DOS 4.x some love. I don't know if it's just sheer perversity (haha, I'm using the worst DOS ever!) or some misguided need to somehow salvage its reputation and prove it was unfairly maligned
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm NOT part of this fringe movement (if it truly exists), but feel that those wanting to use DOS 4.x should be able to without anyone being judgmental about it.

@Eudimorphodon: That's not to say I think YOU are being judgmental, I'm just expressing MY view. You showed you're not being judgmental here:

I mean, if you want to use it *because* it's fringe then more power to you, but objectively it's garbage, sorry. From a nostalgic/historical standpoint strictly speaking, sure, if you want to restore a computer to exactly match its "factory fresh" configuration it's the "correct" choice in a few cases
Click to expand...

Robin4 asked about the pros and cons here. I think we've covered both pretty well now. But I'm still wondering what reason leaves DOS 3.3x out of the running. Is it because he didn't know how to break the 32mb barrier under 3.3x?

but I am seriously skeptical it was ever preinstalled on an XT unless a cantankerous customer specifically demanded it. Mostly it showed up on a few IBM PS/2s; FWIW, the 55SX we had at the office back then had 3.30 on it, despite having a 60MB hard drive.
Click to expand...

I doubt XT's had 4.x pre-installed on them as well. A case in point: Amstrad's second generation PC line had an XT system, the 2086, which came with DOS 3.3 while their 2286 model from the same PC line had DOS 4.01 pre-installed. So I think DOS 4.x was wider spread than you seem to think it was, but probably only for AT class and above machines.
 
Quite lot of big manufactures had one or two systems with PC/MS Dos 4.xx in rom. IIRC the first IBM PS/1 286 did as well Fujitsu models. As well as a few European Amiga 500 like systems without monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top