Was thinkingg about buying another thin client PC to run DOS on, started thinking and remembered that outwest.synchro.net runs on a HP 5740e thin client that can run DOS.
Got it done, now my hp 5740e will be my next project, I will put the 4GB ssd back in it and remove the 2.5 500 GB HD that I mounted on the outside of the case, (thin client has no room on the inside), I will need to istall DOS and partition ssd. Will do that during thanksgiving holiday.
Got it done, now my hp 5740e will be my next project, I will put the
4GB ssd back in it and remove the 2.5 500 GB HD that I mounted on
I'm wondering if DOS will be able to successfully boot from an SSD on that machine.. I seem to recall hearing about issues with old operating systems booting from certain newer types of drives. I've seen people using period-correct hardware for old operating systems, and sometimes if they want a fast boot drive, I've seen adapters that will let you use a CompactFlash card with an IDE interface - so you'd basically be using a flash drive but make it look like an old IDE drive.
Got it done, now my hp 5740e will be my next project, I will put theI'm wondering if DOS will be able to successfully boot from an SSD on tha
Also, I remember DOS having a partition size limit too; you might not to
Nightfox
Nightfox
Also, I remember DOS having a partition size limit too; you might not to
From what I've read the Intel Atom N280 x86 can run DOS natively, I have read the only incompatability is with the sound, but there's a couple of solutions to fix that.
As far as the CPU, I think any modern Intel and AMD CPU could probably still run DOS natively, as x86 CPUs have a lot of backward-compatibility built in.
MSDOS 6.22 is limited to 2 gb hard drive partition. Better to create this partition first, if you plan to have multiple partitions on your Hard Drive.
Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Nightfox on Sun Nov 23 2025 06:34 pm
That's good.. My main thought was more of the storage, as I think I'd heard DOS can have trouble booting from some modern storage devices, such as SSDs (particularly if it's an m.2 SSD), and perhaps SATA (though I'm not sure about that).
As far as the CPU, I think any modern Intel and AMD CPU could probably still run DOS natively, as x86 CPUs have a lot of backward-compatibility built in.
Nightfox
Yes I realize that :) not sure if I'm going to install MS-DOS 6.22 or windows 95.
Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Lordwoodoo on Mon Nov 24 2025 01:03 pm
Well, I would suggest to install both, and even Windows 3.1 on the MSDOS partition is a cool thing. I will explain why later. It is always good to have a pure MSDOS. In that case, you need to part the hard drive in 2 partitions. One for MSDOS, 2 gb max, and the second to install Windows 95. See the max capacity limit for Windows 95, and if the hard drive have more space after that, you will have more space to create one more partition for data for exemple: games or software, etc.. for Windows 95. A very important thing is: you need to create 2 primary partitions to be able to boot both!! Before doing the installs. FDISK or Partition Manager will do the trick using a floppy drive or a CDRom device.
Installing Win 3.1 on the MSDOS partition does not affect the previous MSDOS installed, and its cool if you want to boot Win 3.1 and use MSDOS in windowed mode over it. You can take notes with notepad, for exemple playing Zork.. have multiple MSDOS windows opened, etc.. Really cool!
I'm leaning towards just installing DOS 6.22. I Remember when Windows 3.0 came out, i bought it and then I upgraded to 3.1, never really liked those 2 versions, they were basically DOS shells, in dos I used a program called xtree.
After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to run the
Nightfox wrote to Denn <=-
After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to
run them. I think especially things like graphical & drawing tools,
word processors, etc. moved toward Windows because (I think) drawing programs were probably easier to develop for Windows 3.x than for DOS,
and with word processors, you could get WYSIWYG interfaces, so it was a lot easier to create documents just as they'd appear when you print
them, compared to DOS software.
I'm leaning towards just installing DOS 6.22. I Remember when Windows 3.0 came out, i bought it and then I upgraded to 3.1, never really liked those 2 versions, they were basically DOS shells, in dos I used a program called xtree.
I remember my 1st DOS machine, it had a whopping 20 mb hard drive. Then I bough my 386 sx that had 40 mb hard drive.
I still don't really like most GUI word processors, but they're definitely a lot better these days. Abiword was pretty good at one point, I wonder if that one is still actively worked on. It was decently fast, and had Word Doc support.
After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were
specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to run
them. I think especially things like graphical & drawing tools, word
That was about the time I started in DOS/Windows technical support. I remember seeing people be able to sit in front of Microsoft Word and write a memo without any training. WordPerfect came with keyboard overlays with all the commands on them.
We had one person who insisted on WP, and our finance team swore by 1-2-3. Excel wasn't quite ready for Prime Time yet.
MSDOS 6.22 is limited to 2 gb hard drive partition. Better to create this>partition first, if you plan to have multiple partitions on your Hard Drive.
Yes I realize that :) not sure if I'm going to install MS-DOS 6.22 or windows>95.
The other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space
if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breaking
up a drive that the OS could probably handle as-is into 4 or 5 partitions
to cut back on wasted space.
I will look into Xtree. Dont know it.
The other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breaking up a drive that the OS could probably handle as-is into 4 or 5 partitions to cut back on wasted space.
I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was available at the time..
But for real multitasking with real MSDOS, Win 3.1 with a Windowed MSDOS over it is the best for me. My exemple was: you are playing Zork over MSDOS and you want to takes notes with Notepad at the same time. Desqview is really a cool thing but eating all the memory.
For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.
FAT can handle 2 gigabyte partitions as stated, but FAT 32 can handle
2 Terrabytes. Win 98 comes with DOS 7.1 usually but you can use
DOS 6.22 with it if you prefer by installing 6.22 first and then installing Win 98 and telling it which version of DOS to boot with.
I will look into Xtree. Dont know it.
I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was available at the time..
For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better
than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.
Maybe. I will check this out. This is interesting for me. I have both installed in some hard drives. DESQView v.1.x version dont have a GUI, but version DESQView X 1.x and DESQView X 2.x have one. If I remember DESQView 1.xx have just a system menu wich remains hidden if not used.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
One time, years ago, there was someone who asked me, "You're a software engineer? Do you know how to create letter head in Microsoft Word?"
Being a software engineer doesn't mean I know how to do such-and-such
in any given program..
Nightfox wrote to Lordwoodoo <=-
For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better
than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.
Lordwoodoo wrote to Nightfox <=-
Maybe. I will check this out. This is interesting for me. I have both installed in some hard drives. DESQView v.1.x version dont have a GUI,
but version DESQView X 1.x and DESQView X 2.x have one. If I remember DESQView 1.xx have just a system menu wich remains hidden if not used.
After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to run them. I think especially things like graphical & drawing tools, word
Interesting.. I used a version of DESQView without a GUI; I didn't realize they made one that had a GUI.
Oh, the time I spent trying to free up a megabyte or two of DOS memory with DesqView and QEMM!
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 244:52:46 |
| Calls: | 164 |
| Files: | 769 |
| Messages: | 94,498 |