MS-DOS 7.00 Beta

[Lucas Brooks]

I recently found a few screenshots of DOS 7.00... I have 2 sets

The first set:

It calls it self "Microsoft Windows DOS 7.00"


A new app called dosver? Made me think about winver.


A new DOS Shell? It is a stub.


I wonder what this help does... The old dos help is much better... Wait, it calls it self MS-DOS again? Shouldn't it be Windows DOS?


Multi-task DOS 4.0? This app looks different... How did that person even get this thing up...

Now the other set... From KenOath!
Here

It looks identical to 6.22... There is nothing much to say.

They all look fake to me as the first set just looks fake, the second set is just DOS 6.22 with a different version (the bios date is 1993, it should be something like 1995).

[os2fan2]

There was talk of releasing a dos 7 with multitasking etc, with task manager etc, but it was ditched.

dosver and taskman sound about right for this, along with shell. Would be interesting to look at it.

[Lucas Brooks]

Really? I don't have it... I found it on my screenshot collection dated 10 years ago. I remember getting it from a friend when I was living near my office. Can't remember what he said but he don't have the files. It says Microsoft Windows DOS which doesn't make any sense.

Today, I dug up those screenshots and I thought it would be interesting to share them and I thought it was a fake.

How about the KenOath one? They looks fake as well, but KenOath never made any fakes and it was approved by admins... Quite unlikely that DOS 7 was developed to the stage where there is a proper setup with upgrade dialogue. It looks nothing like a beta.

Well, the first set is harder to fake I guess... You just can't hex edit command.com to change the branding because the version info is longer than the string in 6.22 and 7.00 (95). The KenOath one is fake-able as you can simply replace 6.22 with 7.00. Still, there is not proof that they are real.

Edit: Windows 2000's command.com calls it self Microsoft Windows DOS.

[AlphaBeta]

The first set is fake as hell.

There was talk of releasing a dos 7 with multitasking etc, with task manager etc, but it was ditched.

Yes, that's true, there is a couple of antitrust docs that discuss the plans:
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowacon ... X01827.pdf
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowacon ... X07681.pdf

[os2fan2]

I've had a look at both sets of pictures.

The pictures in ComputerHunter's OP here, show the sorts of screens that you see in MS-DOS 6.00 betas as well. The strings in version are too long to string-hack. There is a task manager, and a new shell, which are mooted for 7.00, so it seems to have a lot of the good signs. The reference to using the old help is something seen in betas, (using old docos), Having seen the piccies, i think this is the real mccoy.

Ken Oath's pictures show setup, the command prompt, QBasic help and dosshell. All of these are available in 6.22, and the help system can be found on the OLDMSDOS of most win9x distros. Dosshell 7 is not much different to the 6,22 one, except the version is set to 7. The size of command.com suggests an early beta, as those in b56, b58 and b73 are all 78043 bytes. It seems a curious mix of >Chicago Version 4.00.58s< and some msdos 6.22, The carets around the version-text is the string in command.com. The string is long enough to get >Windows DOS Version 7.00< in it.

The pictures you provide are some of the applications that i have heard being developed for msdos 7. First there is mention of a task manager, and evidently a text-mode shell. Most of the dos stuff done under windows, like pifedit, and regedit, would need dos versions. We have seen a regedit come out in the later versions of windows.

Win9x did take a good deal of input from mtdos 4, but mtdos4 is more like OS/2 than Windows.

There was talk of a 30k help engine for this dos, but that's all i heard of it.

This is Chicago beta 73 dos running at the win7 prompt.

Code: Select all

Microsoft(R) Chicago Version 4.00
             (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1981-1994.

L>ver

Chicago Version 4.00.73g

[os2fan2]

The beta in the OP looks like a microsoft beta. Dosver is printing a framed message, warning of a beta. The shell is incomplete, but then there are incomplete features in Neptune. Taskman and shell were mooted features of this dos. It's the sort of thing you show in vapourware. I've seen IBMDos 7 shown with an OS/2 style pmshell.

The ken_oath files looks like a repack of the five disk beta two, with a setup. The help file is from dos 6.0, it lacks a 'what's new' section. The command.com is 78043 bytes, exactly as in betas 56, 58 and 73. Arj is present. In a distro at this time, Microsoft was using pkzip, or an inhouse compression. A dos 6.0 + beta 58 is the bulk of beta 2 fake i list as 607.

[Lucas Brooks]

The first set is fake as hell.

That is what I thought... Please don't say hell is fake as it is abuse. Or you mean "well".

The date of my screenshots doesn't match... It should be 1993 not 95. My one is more like a 95 DOS. The DOS 7 described is more like a Chicago thing. Is there any info on when the DOS 7 project stopped? That might be the best way to tell the authenticity of my screenshots.

[Overdoze]

Looking at anti-trust documents, Microsoft already struggled how to position DOS 7 in relation to Chicago in 1993. By 1994 it was decided there would be no new DOS version after 6.22.

[Lucas Brooks]

So it is fake because of the date on it. The KenOath one looks real.

[os2fan2]

The KenOath version looks very much what i reviewed under M607, except it has an install. You can pull a dos setup out of the astro tapes (ie msdos 6.0 source). The give away here is that 'arj.exe' is present, although microsoft used pkzip or inhouse stuff. You can see it in slide 19 and 14, where dosshell is showing the dos directory. The command.com is the same size as in the 607 stuff, and it looks like it comes from Chicago b54 or b58, with some string hacks.

The bulk of the utilities in M607 come from DOS 6.00, the help file certainly does. The help file is 6.00, which does not have the 'what's new in 6.xx' section. I have not seen a compiled DOS help other than the ones i made.

Take a look at some of the msdos 5.0 and 6.0 betas here. Some of these toss up warning screens similar to what you see with 'dosver' in your pictures. The fact that your pictures are showing things that match what's in the antitrust docos, and not in the msdos 6.x (eg task-swapping), and some are entirely novel features not in either (but slated for the pcdos 7 beta), eg shell, would lead me to suspect that this is the real thing.

One might note that in part, what Microsoft released is also at the descression of the lawyers. We see 'Windows XP N', because including media player was anti-competitive. Likewise, Windows 3.11 (not workgroups), was a request to develop a windows that did not include stuff that closed the networking market (Novell, Banyard, etc). It is highly likely that they were toying around with a DOS version to match Windows, in much the same way we see "Workgroups for DOS" at the same time as wfw 3.11.

I suspect that KenOath was fooled by the genuineness of the M607 release like i was when i first saw it. The command.com does not match any released version (like the various msdos 6.30 versions), especially since it comes with a fancy setup proggie. But the source for this is already released in the Astro tapes, and it would not be beyond some-one competent enough to run it through that. We would note that the KenOath version is actually a base install, like what the astro tape prepares. Most betas are set as upgrades.

It looks real, because i suspect a lot of people don't know what to look for in real / not-real in betas.

[DiskingRound]

Just a speculation, 95 could mean Windows 95, and 54k could be the build of Chicago, but since Windows 95 was not used or even planned until August 1994, I'm not so sure about it. 95 could also be the revision of DOS.

[os2fan2]

I suspect that the OP was released after the year M (ie the year between 1994 and 1995, that microsoft were supposed to buy to allow an extra year to iron out bugs in Windows 95). Of course, we could be looking at a string hack here, but the string and version number suggests we are looking at something cooked up before the final release. Edit v 2.0 did the rounds before Win95 came out.

I suspect the .54k stuff relates to the build of the utilities in this DOS, and the OP is demonstrating a number of them. They're not the sort of thing one sees in DOS, while nearly everything in M607 is in DOS, except some compiled batches. There were a lot of quite strange QuickFix packs circulating during 1993/4 that have since disappeared.

[Lucas Brooks]

I don't think it is real... Or it is and I don't know. The year doesn't match so I guess it was fake. I am still trying to make a "fake" of that my self to see how did that person managed to change the string. The one from DOS 6.22 is 19 characters and the one from screenshots is 40. As far as I know, there is no such thing exist that could modify DOS .COM files without the source code.

Still, the screenshots doesn't prove anything unless we get any files to see if it is real or not. I lost contact with the person who gave it to me and he could be on BA... It was something dated from 2008 and I can't remember exactly what happened when I got those screenshots.

The version looks like some 95 release.. I have a hypothesis that: The project was cancelled and just before the release of Windows 95, they dug this thing up and changed the branding to Windows DOS and .95 while preserving the 54k from 1993. It might be used by MS to do some private testings or other stuff. Of course, this could be fake as nobody had any really good explanations about the wired branding, version or compiled date.

[johnlemon647]

Nice fine ComputerHunter I always thought there was a real MS-DOS 7.0 out there and Microsoft never release it. Antitrust docs was talk about MS-DOS 7.0 have multitasking etc, with task manager this build prove that MS-DOS 7.0 as exist it. It nice will be find build and files go it.





-------------------
My first 200th Posts

[Lucas Brooks]

Found another one about DOS 7, very likely to be fake:



This looks very fake to me but always good to have a check. I never heard of Registry Editor for DOS, and have no idea how it works. Also, DOS doesn't even need registry to run. Also, it was never mentioned in Chicago.

[AlphaBeta]

That's also fake as hell.

On the other side, a fact worth pointing out is that the Win9x regedit can actually run from MS-DOS:

[Lucas Brooks]

Seriously, stop saying ...as hell! Some people will get offended by that. I know they are probably fake as the person who gave me those faked lots of stuff. Also, give me some evidence supporting that they are fake and I will delete those fake screenshots.

[Lucas Brooks]

Great news! I found MS-DOS 7! I am still testing it out and I will upload them today.

Edit: -MANUAL-.!!!

Code: Select all

GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X
ออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออ
                        HOW TO INSTALL MS-DOS 7.00?
                        ๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙๙
* Type the next commands at the command-prompt:
        CD\
        CD\DOS
        ATTRIB C:\MSDOS.SYS -H -R -S
        ATTRIB C:\IO.SYS -H -R -S
        ATTRIB C:\COMMAND.COM -H -R -S
        C:\COMMAND.COM
        DEL C:\DOS\*.*
        <INSERT DISK #1>
        COPY A:\DISK1.EXE .
        <INSERT DISK #2>
        COPY A:\DISK2.EXE .
        <INSERT DISK #3>
        COPY A:\DISK3.EXE .
        <INSERT DISK #4>
        COPY A:\DISK4.EXE .
        C:\DOS\DISK1.EXE
        C:\DOS\DISK2.EXE
        C:\DOS\DISK3.EXE
        C:\DOS\DISK4.EXE
        DEL DISK1.EXE
        DEL DISK2.EXE
        DEL DISK3.EXE
        DEL DISK4.EXE
        COPY IO.SYS ..
        COPY MSDOS.SYS ..
        COPY COMMAND.COM ..
        <RESET SYSTEM NOW>
        CD\DOS
        SYS C:\DOS C:

* QEMM will NOT work with this Beta

* Make sure your AUTOEXEC.BAT does not load Windows. You have to load
  Windows with the AutoWin-command:    AUTOWIN ON 
                                       AUTOWIN OFF
ออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออ
GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X๚GT๐X
ออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออ
        

FILE_ID.DIZ

Code: Select all

GTðXúGTðXúGTðXúGTðXúGTðXúGTðX            
ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
º     ÚÄÍËÍÄÙ ÉÍÍÄ  ÄÍ»ÉÄÄ'94
º  ÄÍ»³  º    ÇÍÄ    ɺ¼
ÈÍÍÍͼ   Ê    ÈÍÍÄ ÄļÈÍÄ
GTðXúGTðXúGTðXúGTðXúGTðXúGTðX            
ÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ»     ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄ
úGTðXúGTðXú¶ 1/4 ÇúGTðXúGTðXú
úPROUDLY   ÈÍÍÂÍͼ  PRESENTSú
ÄÄÍÍþ  MS-DOS 7.0 áŠta  þÍÍÄÄ
January release of MS-DOS 7.0
þ full 32-bit technology
þ autoloading Windows with
  new command
þ easy-to-make DoubleSpaced
  floppydisks with the 
  DoubleBoot command
þ XDir command for verbose 
  directory-lists
þ new fast FileFinder
þ DoubleSpace now supports
  larger harddrives than
  500 Mbyte (up to 3,8 Gbyte)
þ Newer and better versions 
  of Dos-applications like
  InterServer etc.
ÄÄÍÍþ  MS-DOS 7.0 áŠta  þÍÍÄÄ

[os2fan2]

The feature set is very much like that in M607, which is the dos6.0 based beta. But i will look at it. Dblboot is a batch file on the msdos 6.22 disks, compiled by bat2com.

[Lucas Brooks]

So, is it M607 fake or real? I don't even know what it is. DoubleBoot is converted from a batch file...

The link: https://mega.nz/#!EIUnRSoK!nUAcOyMIr1zw ... mbtXJJ-9_c

[os2fan2]

Really looks like M607. It's basically my catalogue number for a beta built largely off MSDOS 6.00. There is a review of a beta in 'undocumented dos', which I allocate 'M627' (ie a beta 7 based on 6.22), but i have not seen it. It has other interesting features. The DOS in OP does not match either of these versions.

FWIW, M607 is a 'beta 7.00' heavily based on 6.00, and some files from Chicago b58, along with a smattering of other files. EGA.CPI is from a german release. It's a very common circulation on the internet, but it does not have that 'beta' feel about it,

There are a number of compiled batch files, which make themselves known if you run them under dosshell.

One of the give-aways is 'arj.exe'. Microsoft did not use arj but pkzip, often a signed version of it. The filedate 010194 is a but suss. I suspect it's using the same date as 622 or something.

This one is the same one as in KenOath's tapes.

[Battler]

Microsoft did not use arj but pkzip,

No, Microsoft did not use PKZIP, either. It used the ZIP algorithm (DEFLATE) in the form of MS-ZIP but that's about it.

The filedate 010194 is a but suss. I suspect it's using the same date as 622 or something.

MS-DOS 6.22 is dated May 31st, 1994. 6.21 is February 1994.

[Overdoze]

This is the standard fake that's been going around since 1994.

[DiskingRound]

There is apparently a November edition as well that has been scene leaked.
I have already seen an MS-DOS 6.30 fake distributed as well.

[johnlemon647]

It be nice we find MS-DOS 7.00 Beta 2 it based of MS-DOS 6.22.