Build your own antisocial writing rig with DOS and a $2 USB key

Sometimes, the size and complexity of modern OSes – even the FOSS ones – is enough to make us miss the days when an entire bootable OS could fit in three files, when configuring a PC for production meant editing two plain-text files, which contained maybe a dozen lines each. DOS couldn't do very much, but the little it did was …

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Descent and Doom

as they were originally released. Especially Descent since it is a 4-dimensional engine, i.e. you could rooms overlay in 3D space - literally.

Got SB-Pro and Adlib emulation working? Last used by me was the ESS868 (or ESS686?) PCI sound card which offered a DOS tool for DOS SB-Pro and Adlib emulation. But that hat to be adjusted for every chipset. But I gave up after a while finding a card which works with DOS in modern machines. Got some PC's in the cellar which can run DOS natively since they are old, but I lack time / will.

Oh, and Descent was not really 4D: The engine simply was a series of attached cubes which the engine followed, and if they intersect each other in our 3D-Logic thinking, for the engine they never intersected. It simply knew you were in Cube 20, traced which cubes can be seen through the sides (like cubes 15 to 25) and rendered it. That cube 234 was in the same space, and Cube 87 too did not matter, you were not "in" those cubes, you were in 20.

And use a CRT monitor for perfect delay-free displaying.

Oh, and I forgot: I saved my IPX and TCP/IP DOS stuff for... maybe when I retire ?

[Uncle Slacky]

Re: Descent and Doom

This might help with SoundBlaster emulation: https://github.com/crazii/SBEMU

[AlanSh]

Would you like a copy of EasyEdit II?

Back in the late 80's and early '90's, I wrote EasyEdit II - a text editor with word processing pretensions. It sold well (kept me in PC's for a few years) but, of course, got taken over by better Windows tools.

I've still got it lying around and, if you wish, you are welcome to add it to your collections. It's here https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/hvqjqcjdrp4xnbye7u5aj/AC3mEeqQwyF1zQhF0bZgX3A?rlkey=2nfmc8hg8z8s1ltp2ky1iy4jx&dl=1 - feel free to download it and play. It includes all documentation, of course.

Have fun

Alan

[Liam Proven]

Re: Would you like a copy of EasyEdit II?

> Back in the late 80's and early '90's, I wrote EasyEdit II

Very nifty indeed!

Have you considered open sourcing it and sticking in on Github or somewhere for folks to study?

If you don't want to reveal the source, then the FreeDOS Repo would distribute binaries for you:

https://clasqm.github.io/freedos-repo/

[AlanSh]

Re: Would you like a copy of EasyEdit II?

Thanks for that link. I will investigate. I can't post the source because I use some libraries (e.g. putting overlays into extended memory) which I don't own. So, githib isn't the way, but freedos maybe.

Alan

[edit - I've had a look there, but I can't work out how to add my program.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Would you like a copy of EasyEdit II?

> I've had a look there, but I can't work out how to add my program.

I think you simply contact the maintainer and offer it to him.

https://github.com/clasqm/freedos-repo

Leads us to

https://github.com/clasqm/

[elsergiovolador]

World

In my world, antisocial writing rig is just a fat permanent marker.

Then you can draw things like:

Carve your name into the void, and plant flowers in the cracks.

Cut the wires, break the locks, open every door you feared.

Become the ghost they fear, and the hand that lifts the fallen.

Smother the sun with your sorrow, and light a candle no one sees.

[captain veg]

DOS 7, 7.1, 8

"After Microsoft launched Windows 95, it lost interest in MS-DOS"

I might be reading that wrong, but it seems to gloss over the fact that Windows 95 through ME all booted in to DOS and relied upon it for some core functionality (e.g. reading the RTC). It's true that Microsoft did a largely successful job of hiding its ugly underbelly, but it was always there, and you could even create a bootable DOS floppy from the command prompt. I did this at the time in order to run the Microprose Grand Prix 2 game.

-A.

[Liam Proven]

Re: DOS 7, 7.1, 8

> the fact that Windows 95 through ME all booted in to DOS

Oh, it did, yes, that is true.

(Although I didn't know about the RTC part.)

But it's not available separately. That is the key thing. You can rip it out by force and I believe some have bolted an installer on the result, but it's not freeware, it's not FOSS, and the product of which it's part is still on sale. So it's legally chancy.

The kernel (and FAT32-specific bits of) PC DOS 7.1 is a free download from IBM as part of the IBM ServerGuide Scripting Toolkit. The rest needs the external tools from PC-DOS 2000, also a free download as part of MS VirtualPC.

So that, for me, is more interesting.

But SvarDOS is more interesting still, because it combines the FOSS DR-DOS kernel with the user tools from FreeDOS. It's smaller, simpler, and more trad-DOS-like than FreeDOS itself.

That's why I chose it.

[Deadweasel]

Re: DOS 7, 7.1, 8

Windows 98(SE) was the last version to have an honest-to-goodness independent DOS environment. From Windows 2000 and on, DOS was reduced to little more than a command line terminal within Windows. DOS went from being the underlying OS, to just another accessory component of the OS (now Windows itself).

As of Windows 2000, the command prompt took over; it looked like DOS and had many of the legacy commands still available, but it was no longer its own full-fledged OS, and could not be used independent of Windows.

[Liam Proven]

Re: DOS 7, 7.1, 8

> Windows 98(SE) was the last version to have an honest-to-goodness independent DOS environment.

You forgot about Windows ME.

Now, I know, a lot of people _say_ they would _like_ to forget about Windows ME...

[karlkarl]

> This vulture, though, is not a gamer and finds emulation a little unsatisfying.

I kind of agree. Though the virtualization via VirtualBox is overkill for DOS (and especially writing).

As a middle ground, to scratch my retro itch, I ported / hacked on the original DOSBox to use libdrm(7) and wscons(4) directly on OpenBSD, so I can skip booting up Xenocara/Xorg or some compositor. It feels a lot more native and fun now.

I am still struggling to implement a widescreen 3.1 display driver for my hacked DOSBox. It is simpl(ish) in principle and I feel I am close but it is always taking a backseat from all my other projects because it is not very satisfying to write that kind of code in my spare time.

[Liam Proven]

> I can skip booting up Xenocara/Xorg or some compositor. It feels a lot more native and fun now.

That is very nifty, but I personally would have gone for DOSemu. That runs the real thing on the metal. (AIUI.)

[An_Old_Dog]

DOS Connectivity and Apps

1. Xircom made a neat Ethernet adaptor which hooked on to your parallel port.

2. Multiple companies made external hard drive enclosures and DOS drivers; you attached the drive to your parallel port. At my work, we called these "Pony Drives". The related string, "h45" floats through my mind.

3. I don't know about later versions, but MS Word 1.0, running on an 8MHz XT clone, was absolutely dog-slow when paging down or up in a document -- even in a short one.

4. I fondly remember the lightning-fast shareware DOS word processor, "PC-Write", and Semware's QEdit.

5. I was never into "Doom", but I loved "Quake".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DOS Connectivity and Apps

Hex 45? Nice.

[Liam Proven]

Re: DOS Connectivity and Apps

Not 100% sure I follow the relevance but OK.

> 1. Xircom made a neat Ethernet adaptor which hooked on to your parallel port.

Sure. I have a D-Link one somewhere. Works in Linux too. But no help here: nothing that can boot off USB has a parallel port. It does have built-in Ethernet thought, but probably lacking DOS drivers.

> attached the drive to your parallel port.

See above: no parallel ports any more. Once booted off DOS then a 2nd USB drive also appears as a second hard disk to DOS. Much smaller, cheaper, quicker and easier. (But this is dependent on BIOS and won't work on everything.)

I'm more interested in what you can do with DOS on 21st century kit.

> MS Word 1.0, running on an 8MHz XT clone, was absolutely dog-slow

I believe you. WordPerfect was the speed demon, but it's not freeware.

DOS Word on a Core 2 Duo is pretty damned quick though!

Word uses a very clever algorithm which enabled infinite undo, Fast Saves, and more. Word's developer Charles Simonyi deserves credit for that although he didn't invent it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_table

> the lightning-fast shareware DOS word processor, "PC-Write"

Do you think it should be included?

SemWare is still around!

https://www.semware.com/

The editors are freeware now, though. So, same question applies.

[PRR]

Re: DOS Connectivity and Apps

>> "PC-Write" > Do you think it should be included?

Upvote. Entirely functional and featured text editor and non-WYSIWYG word blender in 1/4Meg of disk (and maybe less in RAM?).

I see I used it into the WWW era, dummy home and info pages for where I worked. The printer 'driver' was like unix termcap, functions and code, easily hacked for rare printers. (The developer of termcap has a place in history, but nobody does termcap/terminfo anymore??)

IIRC, PC-Write 2.7 was about peak PC-Write. I have a full installation of PC-Write 3.? at my C:\Users\Owner\OldDrive\W\PW3, tho I'm sure it is also on the usual sites. (If you need a DMP-430 driver for PCW, I'm your huckleberry.)

What is long-gone is the excellent printed manual. Common technique in shareware- sell glossy spiral-bound documentation. PCW has cats.

https://wildstar84.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/tbt-my-favorite-80s-software-windos-and-pc-write/

https://wildstar84.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/pcwritemanual.jpg

{too big} https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/software/2020/09/102639481/102639481.06.01.jpeg

FWIW, PCW's leader was MS's 9th employee, left with multiple millions.

[ImKluge]

Re: DOS Connectivity and Apps

I've got a bunch of stuff that will boot off a USB device and have parallel ports. Some are ancient, others are maybe 5-6 years old.

[Uncle Slacky]

Re: DOS Connectivity and Apps

Same here, notably a 1st gen i5 business laptop (Fujitsu Siemens Lifebook E780) with an admirably complete set of ports (both on the machine and its docking station).

[Liam Proven]

Re: DOS Connectivity and Apps

> Some are ancient, others are maybe 5-6 years old.

Huh. OK then.

I am infamous for my fondness for elderly kit, with more geriatric Thinkpads around the place than a museum, most about 12-15 years old, and I don't think I own anything with a Centronics port except possibly on the oldest docking station.

I sit corrected.

I used a lot of "smart" parallel-port devices back in the day, and may still own a Colorado tape drive, a scanner, and a Logitech AudioMan sound card (!). I do not miss the tech.

[Dan 55]

On a similar note

Commodore OS 3.0 has just been released. It comes with BASIC and an emulator with games. It's just Linux with an opinionated GUI but I guess you could not connect it to the Internet, do your word processing, then play games afterwards when your work is done. Goes well with an 8BitDo keyboard?

[ilmari]

Re: On a similar note

Not to be confused with C64OS, which is a new OS for the actual Commodore 64 computer. With networking and Google image search support. Mesmerising seeing it rendered with the graphic capabilities of an early 80s 8-bit machine.

[Liam Proven]

Re: On a similar note

> Commodore OS 3.0 has just been released.

I tried the previous version. "Opinionated" is very tactful.

Perhaps a review is merited? :-)

[Dan 55]

Re: On a similar note

I think you should. It's a Linux distro after all...

[Liam Proven]

Re: On a similar note

> I think you should. It's a Linux distro after all...

Submitted today. With a bit of luck it will run tomorrow.

[Ikoth]

Nostagia Overload

Perfect project to pair with my recently acquired IBM Model M keyboard.

The clacking might lead to divorce though...

[That Badger]

Re: Nostagia Overload

I have an old Wang keyboard where they added a little speaker to the back that produces a "clack" every time you press a key. Apparently people missed the sound.

[Doctor Syntax]

If you can provide something that pretends to be a serial link Kernit can handle external communication including file transfer.

[captain veg]

Kernit can handle external communication

Gosh, thanks for that. I'd forgotten that I used to live on Kermit, for a time, back when 1200 baud was cutting edge.

-A.

[Mage]

Re: back when 1200 baud was cutting edge

I used 300 baud dialup to an X.25 PAD. Email, Telex and Fax via a BT server in London from the wilds of Western Ireland in mid 1980s.

[PRR]

Re: back when 1200 baud was cutting edge

> I used 300 baud dialup

300 baud in acoustic modem here. (Dial the voice-a-phone, when it squealed put the handset on the modem's cups)

And 110baud to use my barely-buffered Diablo without flow control. tuk,tuk,tuk,tuk......

> Wordstar on CP/M is just as bad as on DOS.

IMHO it was 99% identical. I knew some WS-DOS, I pulled a CP/M prototype out of trash, in seconds I was a CP/M WS pro.

> make the font in the editing box bigger - pretty please?

I dunno why ALL webmasters want their words big but our words small. I don't charge them for my screen acreage.

This goes back before Y2K. My habit is to compose in old Ultraedit or VIM or Wordstar with my font, then paste into the postage stamp window.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Kernit can handle external communication

"I used to live on Kermit, for a time, back when 1200 baud was cutting edge."

In the days of glass TTYs for a while, as a bodyshopee I lived on Kermit running on a luggable with the usual tiny screen although at least it was 9600. For a long time I was quite happy with multiple small terminal emulators running under Windows or X11. Only since my eyesight has started to deteriorate do I need something bigger (on which subject could I enter my plea for el Reg to make the font in the editing box bigger - pretty please?).

[Liam Proven]

Re: Kernit can handle external communication

> (on which subject could I enter my plea for el Reg to make the font in the editing box bigger - pretty please?).

Ctrl + numeric keypad [+] not working?

[Jason Bloomberg]

LapLink - and AFAIR some standard MS-DOS built-in command - let two MS-DOS machines network over serial or parallel. You can start building a cluster!

And this is why I still have those cables - bright yellow and purple if I am remembering correctly.

I for one welcome the return of our MS-DOS overlords.

[Liam Proven]

> some standard MS-DOS built-in command

INTERLINK + INTERSVR. Very handy. Cloned the 3rd party Brooklyn Bridge, which I much preferred to Laplink myself. some standard MS-DOS built-in command

[Mage]

DOS? What about CP/M

Wordstar on CP/M is just as bad as on DOS.

Jota on Android or KATE on Linux is distraction free writing. Turn off all notifications, or even networking (esp on Windows).

I was running DOS Daggerfall and DOS Arena on Linux in DosBox last week. They are free, though the sample DosBox conf files are for windows so real graphics, mount path and sound lines need an edit.

My coat is the one draped over the 12" mono screen and Apple II with a Z80 card for CP/M. Actually I have an Amstrad PCW8512 mobo in the attic.

[Dan 55]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

WordStar 4.0 is good enough for George RR Martin.

Also Robert J Sawyer uses WordStar 7.0 and he put together an archive with the software, old utilities for WordStar, scanned searchable PDF manuals, and two emulators to run it on modern PCs.

[Liam Proven]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

> Also Robert J Sawyer uses WordStar 7.0

You didn't notice that I specifically mentioned this and included the software bundle?!

He uses it himself and wrote to thank me for it.

[Dan 55]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

I read the article but alas didn't have the time to go down the rabbit holes. The link text for the Wordstar link didn't ring any bells about it, which is understandable as it's just half a sentence long.

[keithpeter]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

People on linux who want to try the wordstar interface metaphor might want to try the joe editor

https://joe-editor.sourceforge.io/

Comes as part of a standard Slackware install, but packaged on Debian &c. Typing jstar gives you the wordstar flavour.

(joe is a text editor, so just gives a flavour of the interface for the interested, not all the style codes and actual printing stuff &c).

Icon: Low distraction text entry? I give you ed. See

http://www.larrykollar.com/technology/2017/06/27/distraction-free.html

(no https on that site for some unfathomable reason)

[Andrew Scott]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

Always used joe as an editor in linux. using vim would be like going back to edlin. why inflict pain on yourself?

[Liam Proven]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

> Jota on Android or KATE on Linux is distraction free writing. Turn off all notifications, or even networking (esp on Windows).

There are a hundred distraction-free *apps* but they miss the core point.

*You* need to manually *turn off* the distractions, networking, etc. They still multitask. You can still just flip to Freecell and waste hours.

I mentioned this when I reviewed the HMD Skyline's digital focus filter thing.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/17/hmd_skyline_digital_detox/

Sure it works. Blocks all the apps. But as I discovered when I uninstalled all my social network apps, you can just open the browser again, rendering the detox feature totally pointless.

Any anti-distraction feature you need to turn on requires the discipline not to turn it on again.

This is not an option when booted into an OS with zero built-in networking and no wifi support.

Also, the keyboard on an old Thinkpad or something is vastly better than any external gadget for an Android thing. The screen is bigger and more useful too.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: CP/M? What about p-System?

For distraction-free editing have you ever encountered UCSD Pascal p-System editor?

My early trajectory was punched cards > CP/M > p-System so p-System was by far the most sophisticated S/W I'd encountered and I still wonder how much of what we take for granted now was invented there.

The menu never occupied more than one line at the top of the screen (I can't remember whether there might have been an additional help line) similar, IIRC, to Visicalc and to the Informix tools. In the editor that would scroll off the top of the screen so that's one distraction removed.

There were a couple of switches for autoindent (what else did one need for editing Pascal source) and word wrap, turn the first off and the second on and it became the editor on which I wrote my witness statements - nothing fancy like spill-chuckers to distract.

On entering edit mode the current line split at the cursor with the existing text to the right being moved up to the margin to leave a gap into which to type - far less distracting than having to type right up against the existing text. When the existing gap was used up it was extended to the end of the line by moving the existing text to the right to the next line. IIRC it would eventually clear the lower half of the screen so you were always typing into clear space.

On exiting edit mode the gap closed up and the menu line returned to the top of the screen. Until then, without the looming presence of the next text, it was as close as could be got to typing on a clean sheet of paper.

[Liam Proven]

Re: CP/M? What about p-System?

> For distraction-free editing have you ever encountered UCSD Pascal p-System editor?

Blimey. Well, in the late 1980s I did, yes.

> When the existing gap was used up it was extended to the end of the line by moving the existing text to the right to the next line.

If I understand your description correctly, that what LocoScript on the Amstrad PCW did as well.

I saw it as a way to handle inadequate CPU power, myself, not as any kind of bonus, but you do you.

All this does not address what I was getting at when I wrote:

«

The key problem is that there are very few tools for writers of human languages. Most console text editors are for writing program code. Worse still, the learning curves of Vim or Emacs are formidable and forbidding. (We've been using Vi-type editors since 1988 and still detest it. Emacs is, if anything, worse.) There are better text editors but they are still aimed at computer text, not creating human language.

»

[Beeblebrox]

Detest vi?

Not sure what's wrong with vi; I remember being delighted with ed on a teleprinter, after having been subjected to punched cards, which really peeved me no end.

I still mostly write in vim, occasionally prettifying elsewhere.

I still refuse to dabble with emacs.

:wq!

[Beeblebrox]

Re: Detest vi?

s/detest/appreciate/g 999

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

> Any anti-distraction feature you need to turn on requires the discipline not to turn it on again.

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon

Shell = <your program>

or

Shell = "c:\Windows\System32\windowspowershell\v1.0\powershell.exe"

MSDN article

Still easy to get around, since you can start explorer.exe :D.

Or simply boot into "safe mode with command line without networking".

Install Core version.

Install the IoT version.

Boot from Windows CD/DVD/Stick and only use the recovery environment to work.

Use pen and paper.

[Liam Proven]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

> Install the IoT version.

I am running it; I wrote about it a week or so ago. As I said then: it's a full local client OS.

You are missing my key point.

All of these share 1 of 3 failings:

1. they are really hard to do

2. They require your restraint not to go and play

3. the tools that work in them are half-crippled

DOS is a full-featured complete working environment with apps that were as rich and capable as human minds could devise -- in the 1980s. I've included 2 or 3 tools which were among the absolute cream of the crop of professional writing tools for DOS.

Not the drastically cut-down apps that masquerade as distraction-free writing in 202x, like Panwriter which I use daily and takes more space than this entire OS and all its apps.

[Mage]

Re: DOS? What about CP/M

DOS in a VM isn't it. CP/M on a Z80 or DOS native boot might be.

But the argument about solitaire or turning on networking is about discipline. Even if you have dedicated writing machine (I have a typewriter in the attic) you can go and do something else. I actually have a 14.25" Android and decent keyboards that work on it as good as a Thinkpad, but I prefer LO Writer, Cherry Stream TKL keyboard and my paper like 23" 4k LG screen on Linux Mint. I still have two slim line PCs that boot to DOS and a decent LCD with a VGA in. Also a VGA to HDMI adaptor somewhere.

I have still copies of NewWord, Wordstar 6.0, my own effort at a DOS editor (with audio control foot-peddle set for joystick port and SB file control for audio transcription).

Unless you have no electricity, no books and no gadgets and live in a locked room with a typewriter you can find distractions.

[PhilipN]

Nice one, Liam

But ... "editing two plain-text files"... you mean config.sys and autoexec.bat? When it took 2 minutes to re-boot to see whether those changes worked?

You are trying to make my hands tremble, aren't you?

[Liam Proven]

Re: Nice one, Liam

> You are trying to make my hands tremble, aren't you?

From nostalgia and longing, right?

Right?

[sanmigueelbeer]

Lotus 1-2-3 (or Symphony), WordStar for the go!

One thing about DOS-based software: Subscription fee (or the absence of). What a breathe of fresh air back then.

[Liam Proven]

> Lotus 1-2-3 (or Symphony), WordStar for the go!

Lotus is arguably free since IBM killed it. The Windows suite works well on Win11, except for online help.

WordStar is included.

> Subscription fee (or the absence of).

Hard to enforce without networking and the Internet.

Which indirectly was part of the motivation here.

[Liam Proven]

> WordStar is included.

Sorry, I mean "1-2-3 is included". My bad.

[BlackPeter]

Late 80's in a large, no longer extant bank, 1-2-3 WAS the word processor. Memos were being printed on 132 (?) column Epson dot matrix printers, with half the paper being thrown away after cutting out the printed part. Where it all started for me.

[Liam Proven]

> 1-2-3 WAS the word processor.

Well, the name was meant to indicate its integrated nature.

1: spreadsheet

2: graphs

3: database

Possibly 2 & 3 reversed.

If you wanted to process words in your spreadsheet, you needed:

[a] professional psychiatric help

or

[b] Lotus Symphony

:-)

Or Pipedream...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Antisocial Bit Intrigued Me.

Careful reading (I hope) distilled it down to a platform that is unconnected, without multimedia and without (fancy) graphics.

Most OSes with the possible exception of Windows can be configured with a minimal kernel that would satisfy those requirements - not that dec osf 3.2g would be a great attraction.

It's only that the desired writing tools of yore were MS-DOS based that requires messing with DOS although I recall there were quite a few Unix text editors and tools built on top of curses or just termcap or terminfo. Some I got running under DOS back then using the ANSI.sys emulation (actually I think the third party and less buggy Nansi.sys.)

I suspect if I needed to run a number of MS-DOS binaries on a regular basis I would try running them in a lightweight x86 emulator under a modern kernel and try to automate the encapsulation process. (Return of the dreaded .PIF (file)? ;)

I find it telling that those who were of the DWB or TeX fraternity‡ of document preparation without performing various gymnastic feats† are largely able to use the same tools and workflows. (Several years ago I found the more recent [g]roff mom macro package a lot more useful than the traditional DWB or BSD packages.)

_{† which is fortunate as none of us are as young or subtle as we once were.}

_{‡ I confess the initial program I ported to my first PC (CP/M) was a nroff subset.}

[Kev99]

On my first PC, an Amstrad, I used pfs: Write, later moving up to pfs:Professional Write. I also ran Quatro Pro. When I got a 286 PC, I upgraded to Quatro Pro 4, which had TABS. I also used pfs:Publisher. At the time I was the Chief Fiscal Officer for a multi-million dollar entity. It was quite easy to create annual reports, prepare fund distributions, and annual budgets. In addition to my Panasonic 24 pin printer I was able to connect my IBM Wheelwriter for official correspondence. Guess what? They all worked just fine nd I didn't need to worry about any mictosoft spyware / bloatware.

[PapaPepe]

Required reading

The article and comments are now on the required reading list for my grand kids.

[martinusher]

Wordstar?

Allow me to put a vote in for Wordstar. I did a lot of useful work on that program, including quite a bit on CP/M.

As for networking, there were TCP/IP stacks available for MS-DOS systems but they were essentially hacked up Unix stacks that were sold by companies at "fairly high" prices. The code itself was straightforward, especially if your networking didn't need TCP (ugly, ugly, implementations that lingered on in one form or another for years). I worked on MS-NET implementations in the mid-80s which is how I came to dislike MSFT's code so much -- this code wasn't just bad, it was BAD. For the better heeled, though, Netware was the way to go. It wasn't wide area networking in the TCP/IP sense but in the days when 'wide area' meant 'dial up' for most people that was moot. (Netware wasn't cheap but it worked, and worked well.)

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Wordstar?

Huh? No, Microsoft offered an TCP/IP stack as well. You can create such a DOS-TCP/IP Disk from NT 4.0 Server CD, see directory \CLIENTS\MSCLIENT\.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Wordstar?

> Huh? No, Microsoft offered an TCP/IP stack as well. You can create such a DOS-TCP/IP Disk from NT 4.0 Server CD, see directory \CLIENTS\MSCLIENT\.

One thing I find tiring about the retrocomputing web in general is that people take half-remembered stuff and then confidently assert that their partial recollections are official canonical Truth because They Were There and Don't You Dare Disagree.

Look, Mr Mxyzptlk, you have a tiny germ of truth here but it's not really correct, and the person that you are replying to was more correct than you are.

DOS did not really meaningfully support TCP/IP, no. Your assertion does not contradict this.

DOS didn't have networking. Very late on, 3rd party DOSes like Novell DR-DOS had network stacks, yes, but they were just as much bolted-on extras as Hummingbird, Wollongong, or the like, that @martinusher was talking about.

If you wanted to do Internet stuff on DOS, then you could. There were stacks like KA9Q:

https://www.ka9q.net/code/ka9qnos/

These were tiny and simple and offered a TCP/IP interface to DOS apps so that DOS code could access Internet services. Like Unix, there were lots of Internet protocols so each was small and simple: telnet, finger, ping, ftp, nfs, etc.

Result: a small stack you could run in your base 640kB and access selected services.

There were also DOS network requesters. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME THING BUT YOU ARE CONFLATING THEM. There were 2 dominant "standards" for these:

* Novell Netware (running NETX over the IPX/SPX protocol)

* LAN Manager, with clients from IBM, 3Com, Microsoft, and others

Later these were extended with configurable driver stacks. Two of them, mutually incompatible.

Novell invented ODI drivers.

Microsoft invented NDIS drivers.

In both cases, the stack got more open but a lot more complex. Now you could take a protocol driver and a network requester and run them on top of an arbitrary card driver. Woohoo, now instead of ~2 bits of software, you have ~6 to ~8 each with config files.

This also led to configurable protocols. Novell basically let you talk TCP/IP as well as IPX/SPX. An expensive addon for Netware let it act as an Internet border router and you could deploy intranet services. (Internal private Internet-protocol services, like an internal website, or internal Internet email.) Thus Netware was rebranded Intranetware

MS went deeper.

The MS and IBM client stacks defaulted to NetBEUI. (Ignore Wikipedia whose editors were not there and have edited the coverage into word salad.)

MS let you add IPX/SPX and even remove NetBEUI and if you had IPX/SPX on your server (LanMan, or Windows for Workgroups, or OS/2, or NT) then clients could still connect _over the same protocol they talked to Netware over_.

MS also let you add TCP/IP. Big woo.

It released a 16-bit TCP/IP stack that ran on DOS, and Windows for Workgroups 3.1, and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Yes, really, those OSes shipped without TCP/IP. In 1993 or so it was not important in PC networks.

Later MS also added a 32-bit TCP/IP stack that could only run inside WfWg 3.11.

Here you go, have a look:

https://winworldpc.com/product/microsoft-tcp-ip-32/tcpip-32-3-11b

This let LanMan file/disk/print sharing operate over TCP/IP.

But that does _not_ mean "MS offered a TCP/IP stack for DOS."

This was a network requester operating over TCP/IP. It was big and complicated and hairy and quite slow.

See these benchmarks:

https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-smb-client-performance/

This anatomises the layers in case you think I'm making this stuff up.

Most DOS internet apps couldn't talk to it, so it was no use for Internet access. It was also something like 10x the size so when it was loaded you didn't have enough of your base 640kB to load a DOS web browser or something big like that.

_This is why WfWg took off._ DOS didn't have the room for this stuff.

So, while in a dictionary sense your claim that "MS offered free TCP/IP for DOS" is true, it is missing the point. It wasn't a free TCP/IP stack: it was a free network requester that could optionally and with some effort use TCP/IP.

The stacks that mattered were not from MS. Or IBM. Or Novell.

They were things like PC-TCP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP_Software

Or Hummingbird:

https://www.proquest.com/docview/226865123?sourcetype=Trade%20Journals

You're mixing up faint memories of a free network requester with paid TCP/IP for DOS tools. The few DOS Internet apps didn't even work with these big fat requester stacks.

As an example, I spent ages getting DESQview/X running in a VM but I can't find a free TCP/IP stack it can talk to. The MS one doesn't work for this.

As another example, if you download *16-bit* Internet Explorer 3 or 4 for Windows 3.1 -- note, NOT Windows for Workgroups -- you will find that it includes its own freeware integrated-but-optional dial-up TCP/IP stack using WINSOCK which is entirely separate from and does not interoperate with the DOS or Windows 3.x network stack.

https://tangentsoft.com/wskfaq/articles/history.html

Always check your facts. Know when you're not sure. Now: Kltpzyxm!

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Wordstar?

> One thing I find tiring about the retrocomputing web in general is that people take half-remembered stuff and then confidently assert that their partial recollections are official canonical Truth because They Were There and Don't You Dare Disagree.

:D I triggered a rant, that was not my intention. What I do remember: Using ftp, irc and webbrowser from DOS, however at the university through their gateway. What I do remember: MS has TCP/IP offering fro DOS. I used both.

However, as you point out, that memory is from way before the years 2000, and therefore I am indeed not sure which TCP/IP stack I used back then on DOS for ftp/webbrowsing (using a local gateway in university network), there were several. The machine back then was an AMD 286. The DOS MS-IP stack came later anyway.

As soon as there was TCP/IP for Windows 3.1 / 3.11 on my 486 PC I never used the DOS variants again. I think I skipped the 386, my moms PC was already one. And then Win950B or C came as next, never used the first Win95 version.

[Dan 55]

Re: Wordstar?

Pretty much everyone who needed an Internet connection at home on a DOS PC or Amiga started with KA9Q anyway, until other things came along. I don't remember KA9Q having a web browser. After KA9Q I was assimilated into Windows 95 along with everyone else.

Such was the nature of MS-DOS that the Arachne browser came with its own GUI and TCP stack.

There's mTCP which is relatively nice and easy but that isn't contemporary.

[Deadweasel]

Meh, we can virtualize all day long, but how is that really disconnected? Are you looking to create an intentionally-sparse environment to foster the creative process? Then don't even use modern hardware for any of it. Create a dedicated space for your work, then populate it with dedicated hardware, like we used to do with the Amstrad word processors or Royal typewriters.

Get a legacy WYSE thin client, bump up the onboard storage a bit, install DOS 6.22, upgrade to Win98, install a few drivers to make USB transfers and peripherals work smoothly, and done! You can connect any VGA/DVI/HDMI display panel to it, and use any combination of PS/2 mouse and keyboard you prefer, or if it's a dedicated writing rig, connect your favorite USB mech keyboard and wireless mouse!

[Liam Proven]

> dedicated hardware, like we used to do with the Amstrad word processors or Royal typewriters.

Still missing the point.

I am nearly 60 but I'm too young to be effective on a typewriter. I want _editing_ not just typing. I do not want to write longhand. I can barely read my own.

I want an editor, I want copy and paste and more to the point, cut and paste: move. I want bold and underline and italic, as seen in the MS Word screenshot in TFA.

I want outlines. I want save and reload and I want lots of versions so I can go back.

I want tabs and indents _and to un-indent again_.

I want this on a decent keyboard, not some flat abomination with no travel.

And I want to throw it in a backpack and take it to the pub, or better still, to a table outside the pub in the sunshine, if the battery still works. (Note, I enabled power management in DOS to this end. It should disable all but 1 core and run it at minimum speed.)

I do not want to heft 10kg of portable typewriter and a few reams of paper and watch them blowing in the wind. I do not want to get lynched by other pub-goers for clacking and rattling away.

No. I want a proper word processor, configured and ready to go, and a decent VGA screen to use it on.

And I have tried to provide this pre-configured because it's 2025 and most people don't know how to do this themselves as you suggest. Furthermore, unlike your proposal, mine talks FAT32.

[David Hicklin]

Dos and Networks

I can fondly remember the days of Dos 3.3? with himem (my memory could be corrupted there) along with Novell networking, Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect 5.1. I loved 5.1 for DOS, so simple, template for the function keys and easy to use formatting codes as you could reveal what was in use any any spot in the document...

Novell provided the front end menu and WP had dynamic network based licencing, if they ran out you went hunting for someone who would take a break for a bit.

It was all Compaq 286 + 386 desktops, then "laptops" with "free" m$ office arrived (31 floppies I think which you could not easily copy but were fine on a network share!) and it all went downhill from then.

[RobDog]

Gen Z ‘IT’ people - “what’s DOS?”

End

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Gen Z ‘IT’ people - “what’s DOS?”

The one that stopped Facebook and Twixxer for a half day!

[ind]

Conan should never have been a king...

When I find I spend most of my time digging up solutions for problems, what I really am interested in is the adventure and discovery. However, that is decidedly not the case for the person who only wants to write.

Decades of working on a solution that requires typing inscrutable (to the user) text and the very real possibility of losing everything by accidentally knocking out the USB drive? Not a solution. (In fact, accidentally losing work is a decades-old problem, and DOS was definitely a culprit; when working at a college helldesk in the 1990s, the adoption of default autosave removed at least half of my workload.)

So IF writing without distraction is the goal, and IF cost is an issue, and IF avoiding proprietary content is future-proofing, and IF the end user never wants to touch code, I am leaning toward Raspberry Pi's keyboard computer and with a portable screen. I would install LibreOffice and blacklist the wifi modules. The total new costs are $220, or used/prior gen less than $100.

Though I feel your--and Conan's--goal is not to achieve a solution, but only to be on the hunt for one.

[Liam Proven]

Re: Conan should never have been a king...

I disagree, but you'd expect that.

> Decades of working on a solution that requires typing inscrutable (to the user) text

No. I thought about this. So, it has a nice easy graphical menu, with optional task-switching one menu click away. Mouse-operated drop-down menu.

> and the very real possibility of losing everything by accidentally knocking out the USB drive?

I did not think about that. But there is no multitasking here, no background activity, not even a disk cache. (It's not needed.) So you can _probably_ just remove the key and put it back in again and keep going.

If you want a dedicated DOS machine, the docs cover writing the image to a CF card instead, and putting it in a $5 adaptor and using it as the hard disk in an old PATA or SATA laptop.

A laptop too new for SATA is too new to run DOS.

> In fact, accidentally losing work is a decades-old problem, and DOS was definitely a culprit;

Several of the issues of which I have attempted to address here.

> Raspberry Pi's keyboard computer

I have got one. Awful keyboard, no batteries, so doesn't work on the move. Next to no productivity apps unless via emulation, meaning power-inefficient.

> with a portable screen.

Lots of cables, lots of clutter. No way, no.

> I would install LibreOffice

No outliner. Lots of local distractions and games.

> blacklist the wifi modules

Now you are getting silly.

No, I do not like any of your proposals, but you go ahead and do you. I quite like my way, and 20 years ago, I bashed out a number of my columns for _Network Week_ in WordPerfect for DOS, or MS Word 5.1a for classic MacOS, or even on my Psion 5MX in the back of a bus. I find these things useful aids to productivity. YMMV.