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
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.
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
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.
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.
I will look into Xtree. Dont know it.
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.
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
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..
Working in IT in small companies, people tried to get me to fix lots of things that weren't IT related by adding the word "server" to it.
Once I was asked to reboot the coffee "server". In all fairness, it was a Rube Goldberg-esque machine with an internal conveyor belt made of filter paper. a contraption pressed coffee down onto the filter and passed hot water through it. The conveyor moved onto a fresh piece of filter, and the coffee contraption dumped the puck into a trash bin. All this happened through little peepholes in the case, with the interior lit up. It looked like an erector set on the inside.
Interesting.. I used a version of DESQView without a GUI; I didn't
realize they made one that had a GUI.
If you have a chance give a try to DESQView 2.xx Its really something impressive for the time. A good experiment! :0)
I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was availabl at the time..
I know it was probably my most-used utility back in my DOS days...
Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found tab completion, though ;)
I didn't know any DOS command shell had tab completion.. I had even used 4D sometimes..
phigan wrote to Bf2k+ <=-
Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the
big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't
mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found
tab completion, though ;)
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to phigan <=-
Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the
big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't
mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found
tab completion, though ;)
To me, it was a Window manager before we had window managers. For a
time, the last line of my autoexec was to run Xtree.
Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to phigan <=-
Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the
big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't mind
Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.PC-Tools was a favorite of mine.
And of course the classic "LIST". Fantastic piece of software.
To me, it was a Window manager before we had window managers. For a
time, the last line of my autoexec was to run Xtree.
today, that and QEdit (file editor) and a LIST clone called LOOK.COM
phigan wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Ha! Now that you mention it, I knew a bunch of people that did that. Personally, I felt like I could type a file operation command even with full paths faster than I could arrow around and select things from a
menu.
I know it was probably my most-used utility back in my DOS days...
Man, so many people were all about xtree gold..
I didn't know any DOS command shell had tab completion.. I had even used 4DOS sometimes..
today, that and QEdit (file editor) and a LIST clone called LOOK.COM
What features does 'look' bring?
Most apps put themselves in the same directory name as the executable. A crafty sort would write a batch file called go.bat that read:
phigan wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Most apps put themselves in the same directory name as the executable. A crafty sort would write a batch file called go.bat that read:
I did stuff like that for a bit and then the OCD in me got pissed at
all the extra files laying about so I deleted them.
Subject: Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
@MSGID: <693484C2.202.dove.hardware@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <693370AB.1247.dove-hwswhelp@tacopronto.bbs.io>
@TZ: 41e0
phigan wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Most apps put themselves in the same directory name as the executable. A crafty sort would write a batch file called go.bat that read:
I did stuff like that for a bit and then the OCD in me got pissed at all the extra files laying about so I deleted them.
You'd only need one batch file - using command line variables, it'd take
the first argument on the command line, change directory to the
directory named %1, then run the command %1.
go, "go procomm" would be the same as running:
cd \procomm
procomm
type in "go telix" and it'd run:
cd \telix
telix
You'd only need one batch file - using command line variables, it'd take
Digital Man wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Or just put \procomm and \telix in your search PATH. Most of those programs were smart enough to be able to find their config/data files based on argv[0] and didn't really need the current working directory
to be "their" directory upon invocation. --
phigan wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
True that, but didn't think about it at the time. Probably would've
made me a lazier typer anyway ;). These days while on video calls
working with people, they're like "onoez! we can't copy/paste this long path into this web based terminal!" and before they're even done complaining about it, I've typed it in and gone on to the next step of whatever we're doing.
| Sysop: | Rixter |
|---|---|
| Location: | Madison,NC |
| Users: | 611 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 151:16:25 |
| Calls: | 3,960 |
| Files: | 89,308 |
| Messages: | 523,320 |