Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Post by **ovctvct** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:23 pm

Why there isn't MS-DOS 7.1 on the FTP? It is on WinWorld however.

Post by **Lukas Marsik** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:26 pm

Because there is no such thing as legit standalone MS-DOS 7.1

Post by **DiskingRound** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:30 pm

The commonly available copy is just a hackjob made by China DOS Union using many different tools to make an ISO. Nothing BA wants to preserve.

Post by **ovctvct** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Offtopic Comment

How can I use the mouse in DOS 6.22 like in the fake 7.1?

Post by **DiskingRound** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:53 pm

ovctvct wrote:
Offtopic Comment
How can I use the mouse in DOS 6.22 like in the fake 7.1?

Offtopic Comment

DOS 7.1 has mouse drivers, so you need a mouse driver (like CuteMouse) in 6.22.

Post by **startmenus** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:00 am

Shipped with Windows, there was no longer standalone release. So the MS-DOS 7.1 install media were not official.

Post by **nerd70** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:09 pm

ovctvct wrote:
Offtopic Comment
How can I use the mouse in DOS 6.22 like in the fake 7.1?

Simple, you download the mouse driver from the BA FTP.
(It's called "Microsoft Mouse")

Post by **yourepicfailure** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:32 am

MS-DOS 7.1 was pulled off of Win95, and what was pulled was used to load the 95 GUI. So, that means it's not original, and non-original things isn't this forum's specialty.

WinWorld has different specs about what goes on their servers or not. BetaArchive isn't WinWorld, nor is it associated with it AFAIK.

Post by **MrFreeman** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:24 am

Despite it not being original, IMO it still is worth preserving.

Post by **Nashville** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:32 am

I thought MS-DOS 7.1 is made by Microsoft.

Post by **Darkstar** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:37 am

MrFreeman wrote:Despite it not being original, IMO it still is worth preserving.

BA preserves Win9x ISOs, and so automatically preserves DOS 7.1. There's no need to keep some hacked-together ISO image in addition to that

Post by **startmenus** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:57 pm

Nashville wrote:I thought MS-DOS 7.1 is made by Microsoft.

Perhaps not. As far as I know, a forum called cn-dos has made MS-DOS 7.1 by modifying io.sys(and other files) from Windows 98. And there must be other people who did the same job.

Post by **mrpijey** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:17 pm

MrFreeman wrote:Despite it not being original, IMO it still is worth preserving.

Preserving "DOS 7" (which is part of Win9x) is as useful as preserving ntoskrnl.exe from WinNT... imo pointless since it's not a separate product, but a component of one. We won't preserve some custom hack jobs if they are already proper parts of other releases.

Post by **os2fan2** » Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:23 pm

Installing a Win9x system, and then install a Win2k or later over the top of this. You will indeed get a number of files in a directory C:\MSDOS7, complete with a loader.

It's discussed here, http://reboot.pro/forum/13-freedos-and-dos/ particularly at the topic of my help file http://reboot.pro/topic/18130-ms-dos-7-help-file/ . the user Offer suggested it, and i review it once i get my hands on it.

Benny Penderson's Hex-Hax (bennylevel) is discussed too.

The PC-DOS 7.1 contains an archive of all known releases of this DOS on one diskette. The files themselves are comingled with other things, but i have excised them into a single release. Apparently, although 1.32 is the most complete, there are other more compatible ones, which i don't know off hand.

Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?

Re: Why no MS-DOS 7.1?