×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DOS 5 Upgrade Video

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the god-i-love-this dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 373

Every now and then I stumble on something so ridiculous that I have to share it. This is a promotion video to upgrade to DOS 5 obviously made in a different era. Promoting features like mouse support, a graphical shell, and freeing up at LEAST 45k of memory, well, Gimme 5! Did I mention that it's all set to a hip beat? You'll love it. And by "Love" I mean "Stick forks in your eyes".

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

373 comments

News? (0, Flamebait)

cpq (1153697) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572383)

How is this news? /. does not equal Digg.

Re:News? (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572423)

Because CmdrTaco posted it and IT'S HIS SITE. Go make your own site so people can complain about what you post on it.

Re:News? (-1, Flamebait)

cpq (1153697) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572467)

Dick off, I asked a question, with the 'Web Host Gone' / this, it seems the stories are getting less "news worthy" - Even for the intertubes.

Re:News? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572865)

Do you always take your dick off before you offer a rebuttal?

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20573311)

Might be off topic but that was a good burn

Re:News? (4, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573501)

Funny - I'd consider this story to be "classic Slashdot." Stories like this one are what Slashdot is all about! If you want only serious tech news, well, I'm sure there's a site out there for you. Slashdot isn't it.

Re:News? (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572919)

Read just above comments:

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Since comments are a valuable part of the site, no, this is not "his", or "their" site now. It's ours.

Re:News? (1)

hauntingthunder (985246) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572785)

well compared to dos 4 5 was a much better release

Re:News? (2, Informative)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573443)

It was also the death knell for Stak Electronics with the release of DriveSpace in 5.

It is amazing how hyped corporations get over this crap. The whole part on how much money corporations would make never really transpired. It really translates into the money Microsoft made.

As far as advertising goes, this one sucks!

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572855)

I think ill stick with DOS 4.5 until they release 5.0 SP1

Re:News? (2, Insightful)

TheOldSchooler (850678) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572985)

Hey it's better than the 12, count 'em, 12 consecutive non-stories posted by kdawnson that are on the frontpage right now.

How About Piracy? (4, Funny)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573481)

The big news will be when MS goes after the video poster for pirating its Intellectual Property. DOS 5 sales have plummeted worldwide, and displaying this video is clearly a contributing factor. I'm surprised they haven't triggered GPFs on any Windows box attempting to play it.

Fail (-1, Offtopic)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572433)

Epic Fail

Re:Fail (1, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572483)

Epic Retry?

Re:Fail (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572835)

Epic Ignore!

Re:Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572883)

Used in conjunction with this [slashdot.org] ...

Epic Ignore? [slashdot.org] :)

Well, it's the closest we've here to an 'ignore'.

Apologizes to Epic, no hard feelings?

Hey, DOS 5 was cool (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572471)

Much better than 4. And the memory management did help. I remember with the help of QEMM I was able to get something like 633K free, which was incredible.

Re:Hey, DOS 5 was cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20573361)

Remember that, by that time, Microsoft was facing strong competition from DR-DOS, and responded by copying features and breaking compatibility. In one example, they inserted code into Windows 3.1 to return a non-fatal error message if it detected a non-Microsoft DOS. With the detection code disabled Windows would run perfectly under DR-DOS.

Moreover, MS-DOS was only available bundled with hardware, so DR-DOS achieved some immediate success as it was possible for consumers to buy it through normal retail channels. Also, DR-DOS was cheaper to license than MS-DOS. As a result, DRI was approached by a number of PC manufacturers who were interested in a third-party DOS, and this prompted several updates to the system.

This video shows Microsoft trying to persuade PC vendors to bundle MS-DOS.

Re:Hey, DOS 5 was cool (1)

g4b (956118) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573425)

yeah, because of such cool thinks like QEMM you really dont need more than 640K *ever*

Hey, give it some respect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20573455)

The new memory features allowed me to play Wing Commander on my 286/12 with sound. The OS was nice and small so I could dedicate half my 40mb HD to that game. I remember making custom Autoexec and config files for some games to squeeze every last K of memory.

Good times. . .

The marketing geniuses... (3, Funny)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572481)

The marketing geniuses who brought you this video live on in Redmond. Who else would design a brown media player and name it "Zune?"

Re:The marketing geniuses... (2, Funny)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572521)

And have it squirt?

Oh yeah, baby. Squirt your brown Zune for me.

Re:The marketing geniuses... (4, Funny)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572597)

Surely those on the Zune marketing team aren't holdovers from the DOS 5 days, right?

Can't watch it at work, but is it any more hallucinogenic than this Windows/386 promo video [google.com]?

Re:The marketing geniuses... (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573171)

I'm not sure. I've watched the 386 commercial, but this one... this one is so painful I couldn't stand more than a couple of minutes.

Re:The marketing geniuses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572653)

To be fair the name Zune isn't too bad if you ask me, but brown... I couldn't think of a worse colour. It just makes it even easier to call the product "shit" when it's that colour.

That said, the new iPod's are equally as dull and unattractive in colour but at least they don't look like poo, glad I got a last gen one!

Brown is the kiss of DEATH (5, Funny)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573023)

My wife's laptop drive died recently.

After replacing it, I couldn't find her XP disk, so I just installed Ubuntu on it.

Her first response on logging in?

"This is crap, it's brown."

Re:Brown is the kiss of DEATH (1)

AndyCR (1091663) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573199)

First step whenever I install Ubuntu for anyone: Put a blue wallpaper, Human-Deepsky skin, and Tango icons on it.

Forget Vista! (5, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572491)

Can I downgrade to DOS 5 instead? Why, the productivity gains alone would be worth it! And I suspect it's not nearly as bloated as Vista.

Re:Forget Vista! (1)

deeblite (617716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573181)

Suspect? It originally shipped on a single 3.25" floppy.

Re:Forget Vista! (2, Insightful)

Hokie06 (986634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573341)

Suspect? It originally shipped on a single 3.25" floppy.
Thats why I never upgraded to DOS 5, it required me to upgrade my floppy drive.

Re:Forget Vista! (2, Interesting)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573541)

If you don't use the web, create a partition for it, install Dos5, some suitably archaic wordprocessor (WP 5.1 should do nicely), and an old copy of Lotus or Quattro, then see whether you really are working faster today than you did 15 years ago. It's not as pretty, but there's something to be said for some of those older technologies. If I wasn't doing graphics and reference heavy technical writing, and just writing, I would seriously consider running something like WordStar in full screen mode. Hands never leave the home row keys, no mousing around, very little screen clutter.

Are there any good MS promo videos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572499)

Seriously, it seems like all their promos suck. What was that other one posted here? Ballmer pushing Windows 3.1 or something?

Gah (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572537)

I watched it.
I hate you now.
Happy?

Those were the days (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572545)

I cannot get to the video due to my work's security policy, but....

I remember well. Dos 4 sucked. Upgrading to DOS 5 was probably the best upgrade I have ever done from M$!

Of course, DOS 3.4 was fairly stable too!

Re:Those were the days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20573289)

IBM made a DOS 5 too. Are you sure it wasn't their version?

Back when people could actually code.. (5, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572599)

Coders today are right lazy bastards. 45kb was a lot. You had to think about organising things properly. Today I write code in languages (PHP mostly, some Perl) that hide all manner of management away from you. I'm certain that someone of my Dad's generation who wrote software in the olden days (1960s/70s/80s) would have a fit at some of the stuff I get away with.

We shouldn't laugh at the idea of freeing up 45k, we should thank our lucky stars it's no longer something we have to care about. We have it easy.

Re:Back when people could actually code.. (5, Funny)

lucifig (255388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572669)

I know it, back in my day we coded by punching holes in little cards! In the snow! And we loved it!

Re:Back when people could actually code.. (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572741)

I agree, especially if these are (like I believe it to be) 45K freed of conventional memory [wikipedia.org]. I remember the times and can assure you 45K freed wasn't to be laughed at, but a real benefit. DOS users were often trying to cram in as much as they could in conventional RAM at one point, and 45K could be the difference of one more TSR process [wikipedia.org] or not. Ah, the memories... And later joys of Quarterdeck and their QEMM [wikipedia.org], and so on.

Re:Back when people could actually code.. (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573207)

QEMM was awesome, especially under DESQview with a 386. The problem on my 286 (12 Mhz with Turbo button, of course) was that it had extended memory, not expanded, so it didn't work with QEMM. The 386, OTOH, worked great. My first multinode BBS ran 6 nodes under DESQview and I still had more than enough processor speed to do some basic text gaming in another window. XDV.com was in my autoexec.bat by default.

Ahh, the days of the 640k cap. Remember "real-time" memory compression software? Ugh.

Re:Back when people could actually code.. (1)

smithcl8 (738234) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572873)

Thanks for clearing up my overall concern with computers taking over the world! It's a relief to know that current programming skills are nowhere near as good at 20 years ago, and that, by extension, the ones 20 years from now won't be as good as yours are now.

By 2030, there shouldn't be a usable piece of software in the world! Hooray technology!

Re:Back when people could actually code.. (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572875)

They also sacrificed a whole lot to get those 45kb. Forget using lots of generic objects, instead you custom code almost everything. Make all sorts of nasty shortcuts and hardcoded structures that make expandability a mess. You may have heard of the "y2k" problem which was only one of many symptoms. Time was wasted not improving the software, but making small optimizations.

Today you have tons of prefabricated libraries and code. Creating, organizing and assembling those to quickly and effectively make complex, stable, expandible, feature-rich, user-friendly applications using a minimum of time and money is a very real skill - even if it's not that same skill. I think your dad's generation would be rather shocked by the requirements of what you should do in a 6 month project.

Re:Back when people could actually code.. (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573063)

I'm certain that someone of my Dad's generation who wrote software in the olden days (1960s/70s/80s) would have a fit at some of the stuff I get away with.

Speaking as someone from those olden days, here's something else to consider. I don't know a single computer user from that era that doesn't have a good understanding of how computers work. That includes secretaries who, when not filing or painting their fingernails, spent their working hours in a command-line environment. And they liked it. ;-)

Re:Back when people could actually code.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20573321)

We have it easy and we do more than ever before. Call it lazy all you want, all that extra power is going towards greater levels of abstraction, increasing security and flexibility (in theory).

Highly complex software goes to market faster than ever, thanks to the base we're building on. Don't pine for the glory days when that base wasn't even there. We're in an age where Microsoft has to be able to write a real server OS, where Apple has a real multitasking/memory management system, where Linux does everything plus 2 kitchen sinks (one written in GTK+, one in QT), where IBM is plugging Java and fostering cross-platform solutions. We don't have to build everything from the ground up. Does that come with a serious amount of overhead? Hell yes!

Just don't wish too hard for the days where you had to build your whole base before you could even start to build an application.

I love the fact that... (2, Funny)

Ransak (548582) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572619)

... the artist is "YO! MS Raps".

Re:I love the fact that... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572679)

EPIC FAIL. Now go fuck yourself.

And it sold rather well, did it not? (1)

objekt (232270) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572623)

Certainly must have sold better than Vista. Are people getting smarter?

Re:And it sold rather well, did it not? (2, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572729)

Well has been redfined. In absolute numbers, the sales were minimal compared to today. The channel was also a lot slower, so manufacturers continued bundling older releases (all through the fall of '91, at the very least).

Re:And it sold rather well, did it not? (1)

XSforMe (446716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572793)

PCs were not that prevalent back then, but to answer your question: YES! DOS 5 was a major upgrade and sold like pancakes. It was the first time you could actually buy the thing, before that you either bought a new computer or pirated it. Feature like undelete and unformat were well worth the money back then.

Still going strong... (5, Interesting)

Retron (577778) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572703)

Scary stuff: 17 years later, if you're running Vista 32-bit, pop open a command window and type:

command /c ver

I bet MS didn't plan on it sticking around quite as long as that when they made that video!

Re:Still going strong... (1)

Dimentox (678813) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573393)

C:\Documents and Settings\xxxxxxx>command /c ver MS-DOS Version 5.00.500 C:\DOCUME~1\xxx>

DOS 5 was GREAT! (1)

MooseDontBounce (989375) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572705)

I know I'm showing my age here but DOS 5 was GREAT. Everyone knew that even numbered DOS releases were very poor. DOS 4 was a hugh piece of crap that IBM force upon Microsoft.(When was te last time you heard that!) After DOS 4 bombed and no one upgraded from their stable DOS 3.11, Microsoft fixed the problems and released v5.

Re:DOS 5 was GREAT! (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572975)

Ehm, DOS 3.11 did not exist.... You're confusing with Windows for Workgroups. In the DOS 4 days, everyone kept DOS 3.3 or DOS 3.1. The best DOSes that existed were DOS 3.3, DOS 5.0 and DOS 6.22... And now FreeDOS, which rocks compared to all those.

Re:DOS 5 was GREAT! (1)

TRS80NT (695421) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573017)

Right you are. DOS 5.0 also broke the Point Oh jinx. Before DOS 5 no .0 version of any M$ product was considered stable enough (yet) to be taken seriously. For a few months there it was an era of good feeling toward Redmond. Ahh, the days.


Re:DOS 5 was GREAT! (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573067)

> I know I'm showing my age here but DOS 5 was GREAT.

My memory says it was buggy.

> Everyone knew that even numbered DOS releases were very poor. DOS 4 was a hugh piece of crap
> that IBM force upon Microsoft.(When was te last time you heard that!) After DOS 4 bombed and
> no one upgraded from their stable DOS 3.11, Microsoft fixed the problems and released v5.

DOS 4 was so bad, scarcely anybody ever even saw it. It's pretty much a footnote. But DOS 5 was fairly buggy itself. After 3.3 (which was rock solid), the next version of DOS that I'd consider reasonably stable was 6.2.

On the other hand, DOS 5 did introduce some useful features, not least dosshell, which provided task-swapping capability almost as good as Windows 3.x. (You had to do more setup, like telling it how much RAM to allocate for each process, but once you got things going it was really not bad.) Also, for those who had not already obtained a good third-party freeware text editor (yeah, all three of you), the text editor that came with DOS 5 was a quite major improvement over EDLIN. In fact, I don't think Microsoft has really materially improved on that text editor since, unless there's a new one in Vista I don't know about. For Windows 95 they separated it into its own executable (rather than having it embedded in QBasic), but other than that it's pretty much the same. And there's Notepad, which is better integrated with the OS, but it's actually considerably worse in several other ways.

Re:DOS 5 was GREAT! (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573555)

5.0 *was* buggy.

MS released 5.0 revision "A" with file dates of 11/11/1991 and IBM released 5.0 revision "1" in 1992 to fix a couple problems with FORMAT and a couple other tools. I also remember SETVER worked poorly on the original release.

-uso.

DOS 5 was a poor response to DR DOS 5 (1)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573327)

Until DR DOS 5 came out Microsoft was just willing to just let everyone suffer with DOS 4.11, 3.*, etc. Then as the number of DR DOS fans grew, Microsoft realized that they risked losing complete control over their platform and had to respond.

DOS 5 was pretty good, but it still wasn't as good as DR DOS 5, let alone DR DOS 6. And the only reason that they outsold DR DOS is that they dumped their product - by dropping their price from like $120 down to $29. DR DOS couldn't compete with microsoft deep pockets.

Re:DOS 5 was GREAT! (1)

Nibs Niven (1116287) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573391)

"DOS 4 was a hugh piece of crap that IBM force upon Microsoft." That's news to me. How did this happen, and why?

Nerdcore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572763)

mc chris et al should cover this. This is about as old school as you can get for nerdcore.

reminds me of my favorite cereal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572861)

hehe, I think for this video the actors asked: "how the hell are we supposed to advertise this, what the hell is an MSDOS ??"
marketing: "oh, just grab this little white box and pretend its your favorite brand of cereal, then work on something along those lines"
actors: "oh ok, got it."

Taco (2, Funny)

slapout (93640) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572887)

"Every now and then I stumble on something so ridiculous that I have to share it."

Nah, too easy.

A couple of things (4, Funny)

Nero Nimbus (1104415) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572927)

1. I'm sure the little animation of the hammer smashing the computer has actually played out in millions of households since the release of that video. 2. Those girls are probably still asking, "Would you like fries with that?" to this day.

This was on G4 AOTS last night... (0)

FataL187 (1100851) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572945)

Blah.. It wasn't that funny then, it's still not that funny here. I'm pretty sure it still sucked when it was released.

Zee Goggles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20572955)

They Do Nothing!

This takes me back to the Windows 3.0 launch in Atlanta.
Now that was something to see (Chicago played live).
256 colors on the screen, programs running in extended ram, woo!

Tough love indeed. (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572959)

And by "Love" I mean "Stick forks in your eyes".

Oh great, I can still hear it, but now I can't find the close window button. You bastard!

5 minutes? On TV? (1)

Beetle B. (516615) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572961)

Anyone know the story behind the ad? 5 minutes is a bit too long to be shown on TV as a commercial. Where exactly was this shown?

Re:5 minutes? On TV? (3, Informative)

sakusha (441986) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573155)

If you can stand listening through to the finish, somewhere near the end they talk about selling this upgrade with new systems, and how every system purchaser will want one, like "do you want fries with that?" So this was obviously targeted at sales reps the dealer channel. I used to work in computer sales right about the time of this video, and we always received tons of stupid sales promo videos like this.

oww.. my eyes.... my eyes.... (4, Funny)

p14-lda (517504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20572969)

Seriously... that is how they beat OS2.... IBM... if you couldn't beat that you deserved not to win the OS battle.

45K helped allot back then (1)

guidospork (21960) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573025)

By the time all the drivers were loaded we frequently had around 350K to run programs. The extra memory was used to hold data. I worked in graphics at the time and there is nothing like spending all day on a large document and finding it nolonger fit in memory.

Just remember (3, Insightful)

flynt (248848) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573091)

20 years from now, people are going to be laughing as hard and reminiscing at our current technology and ads for it.

"4 GB of memory, lol, amazing they could do anything with that!! Coders must have been gods back then to get any performance out of those machines. I miss those days! Sigh...."

Re:Just remember (1)

mashade (912744) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573419)

The funny part isn't really the specs on the machines, it's the fact that they have a rapping professor and a do-wop trio of girls to back him up.

Artist: Yo! MS Raps

Excuse me while I go gouge my eyes...

Re:Just remember (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573421)

20 years from now, people are going to be laughing as hard and reminiscing at our current technology and ads for it.

+++++++++++++++IMTF++++++++++++++++
      The scary thing is, 20 years from now people might look back and envy us being able to do whatever we wanted with our computers:

      Dear citizen, due to your recent visit to the following website: 208.195.75.5, on 9-12-2027 at 0154 UTC according to our logs, your internet privileges have been withdrawn. This website has been flagged by the government for promoting and inciting unpatriotic behaviour.

      Please report to your local police station for processing within 72 hours of this notice, or you will be considered a terrorist sympathizer.

      This is an automated message generated by the Internet Monitoring Task Force. Please do not respond.

Re:Just remember (1)

krakelohm (830589) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573519)

Yea I think the reason this is hilarious is because off the presentation. Nothing like rapping the content's of a press release.

It's not the same (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573529)

Going from 8 bit computers to 16 bit computers was a giant leap forward. Compare a ZX Spectrum/Commodore 64/Apple II/Atari 800 to Atari ST/Amiga and the differences are huge. 16-bit computers were machines that you could get things done.

32-bit systems are more than enough for most tasks.

Are 64-bit systems useful? well, perhaps for specialized tasks.

So I am not holding my breath...in 20 years time, we will still have these 32-bit PCs, and a few people will have 64-bit computers and programs.

Freeing up 45K (3, Interesting)

kupekhaize (220804) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573105)

Back in the days of DOS 5 and 6, freeing up this much memory really was a big deal. I was trying to run some BBS software at one point (I want to say Renegade, however its been a very, very long time). The program refused to run without something like over 500K of conventional memory available, maybe more, and there didn't seem to be anything I could do to get it available.

After lots of research, I found an advanced book that talked about a small 'bug' in MS-DOS' EMM386.EXE extended memory manager. EMM386 had a flag that let you include specific blocks of memory to include. For some reason, if you tacked on the A000 memory range, rather then adding this block into extended memory, it would tack it onto the end of conventional memory. Even better, any available sequential block after A000 could also be included, and it would get added as conventional memory as well as long as it was not in use.

This was hit or miss, as some systems part of the AXXX memory range was being used by the actual video card. However, IIRC more advanced video cards didn't touch this portion of memory any more. The result? Adding something like the following to config.sys:

DEVICE=C:\Windows\EMM386.SYS I=A000-AFFFF

Tacked on quite a bit of extra conventional memory. There was nothing like running the command to show memory usage (and its been too long, I don't even remember what this was at this point) and seeing >750K of conventional memory available and being used.

Ahh, memories...

Re:Freeing up 45K (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573285)

There was nothing like running the command to show memory usage (and its been too long, I don't even remember what this was at this point)

It was (tadaa): mem

      Yeah we all used to celebrate the day we were able to load our mouse drivers and whatnot in "high" memory. I remember playing the excellent F-16 sim "Falcon 3.0", but this game was EXTREMELY fussy because it required something like 620K (out of our 640!) to be "free". If you didn't have the right set up to move most of your drivers (mouse, sound card, etc) to "high" memory, it just wouldn't load. At one point people realized that in fact the OLDER version of the mouse driver took less memory (around 10k) than the newer (the beginnings of Microsoft bloat?), so most people who played this downgraded their mouse drivers to the previous version.

      Anyway, another useless bit of trivia from a bygone age.

Re:Freeing up 45K (1)

jmanforever (603829) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573515)

"There was nothing like running the command to show memory usage (and its been too long, I don't even remember what this was at this point)..."

mem

still works, as far as I know. It works on this Win2K machine.

Brandless? No MS (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573131)

I have a copy of DOS 5 in the box. I had to visit the video to see if this was IBM's PC DOS or Microsoft's MS DOS.

DOS 5 is too generic for a title.

Britney Spears, a rip-off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20573149)

Watch the beginning: the pencil tapping, the look on the girl's face, the clock watching. Then, the music when the dancers first enter the room.

Did Britney Spears rip off an MS-DOS 5 promotional film for the "Hit Me Baby, One More Time" video?

Memories (4, Funny)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573267)

Ahh, the memories. The horrible, horrible memories. Excuse me while I crawl under my desk, rock back and forth and weep softly.

Best MS had to offer (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 6 years ago | (#20573543)

I remember when DOS 5 came out. It was supposed to be a huge upgrade to 3.3. I guess it was, it still seemed like it pretty much sucked. But since it was the best MS had to offer the one thing DOS 5 did was convince me to buy an Amiga.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...