[os2fan2]

You can run the PC-DOS 7,0 version of command.com under Windows 95.

If you get hold of PC-DOS 7.1 (eg Ghost 8 disks), you can run its command,com under Windows 98.

The reason for doing this is to access rexx batch scripts. None the same, neither of these command.com support long file names, so it is handy to keep the microsoft version around too.

[Dels]

this is only a tip isnt?

btw maybe lots of people prefer to use M$-DOS than any other dos version, i use M$-DOS 7.1 power pack (ngee whatever its named) that contain mp3 player,mpg/avi/divx/xvid player,dos shell,etc with windows 98SE on top (just before i switch to Win2k)

[LLXX]

I've also heard that PC-DOS 2000 (last version of IBM's DOS) supports long filenames and can coexist with Windows 98SE. Is that correct?

[os2fan2]

PC-DOS 7.00 B (aka 2000), is a variety of DOS 6.x (you could think of it as PC-DOS 6.7, for example. It does not support long file names, fat32, etc.

OEM versions of MS-DOS 6.23 and PC-DOS 7.10 were made, that did support fat32, but not long file names. Neither of these are complete DOS versions, just a few basic files with Fat32 support hacked into it.

The thing about running PC-DOS 7.1 under Windows 98, or PC-DOS 7.0 under 95 is that it has built-in support for an external rexx processor, and so the batch files are more useful than what raw windows command.com can provide.

[Dels]

just dig out on www.computing.net and you will find a DOS version that i had talk, this version support long file name (LFN), mp3 player, avi/xvid/divx player, dos shell, dos manager (ados?) and the best is native support for win 3.x (as a original m$dos 7.x can't support win 3.x without hack)