Even in 2025 there are still many applications for a simple Disk Operating System (DOS), whether this includes running legacy software (including MS-DOS games & Windows 3.x), or (embedded) systems running new software where the overhead of a full-fat Linux or BSD installation would be patently ridiculous.
This is where the FreeDOS project provides a modern, fully supported DOS, with the recent 1.4 release adding a whole range of features and updates to existing components like the FreeCOM command shell. This is the first stable release since 1.3 was released in 2022.
FreeDOS saw its first release in 1994 and has become the de facto replacement for MS-DOS — featuring many improvements to make it work well on modern hardware and a package manager to manage installed software much like on Linux & BSD. The new kernel didn’t quite make it into this release, but it and some other items will be available in the monthly test builds.
You can download the new 1.4 release here, with live & installer CD images, a USB installer and even a Floppy Edition available. System requirements include an (Intel) x86 CPU, a BIOS (or legacy UEFI mode), 640 kB of RAM and 20 MB of storage.
There’s some weirdness going on with Freedos, it’s not possible to install it on a UEFI system but HP offer it as an option on brand new, UEFI only laptops that have no option for legacy modes in the BIOS.
I’d love to know how it’s done because, unfortunately, I had to wipe the recently delivered ZBook Firefly G11 to install Windows before I’d had chance to investigate and there doesn’t seem to be a way to obtain a recovery image from HP.
https://blog.tmm.cx/2022/05/15/the-very-weird-hewlett-packard-freedos-option/ may have your answer (spoiler: HP appears to boot Linux followed by freedos in a vm!).
Well it would certainly seem to, thank you.
Now I just need someone to mess up and order the wrong option again so I can investigate for myself
Interesting how the only comment assumes buyers are putting Windows on these machines. That’s usually not the case, they are purchased by government and orgs that need DOS for applications they still use. With this bizarrely convoluted configuration I suspect many of those cases won’t work out of the box, but most of these orgs will be using their own systems forward ported from the 80s-90s anyway, so that might not be an issue.
Using a VM itself is fine, great even as full speed emulation is going to break a lot of old applications…. but this mess smells like they have an obligation to not have it be on a usable Linux install, and it’s not user support.
Run.it in grub?
Hi, I think FreeDOS is great for legal reasons, just like ReactOS is.
It’s always good if there’s an alternative available, to those who need it.
I hope we can all agree upon this, at very least and appreciate it. 🙂
For legal reasons? It’s great period. It is quite rare that you actually need MS DOS or one of the others instead, and that doesn’t include most of the software someone might need to run. Lotus, Enable, and Leibert PDU monitoring systems don’t care, for instance.
“It’s great period”
Hi, I won’t disagree about the core system.
It was a lot of work to make it this far. I couldn’t have done that.
However, FreeDOS as a distribution may feel a bit less consistant than say DR DOS or IBM DOS.
The utilities look all different, for example.
The visual ones, I mean. Command line tools are fine.
On commercial DOSes you had an ecosystem that was more uniform, better integrated (say DR DOS 7, had network options in setup).
Not that this matters for function, but maybe it felt more complete.
Less of an construction site.
I mean, MS software all had similar installers like that of DOS 5 or Win NT (white text on blue background, in the 90s).
While the graphical utilities used VGA text-mode.
Like freeware utilities such as NSSI, HWiNFO, Norton Utilities etc. do.
FreeDOS utilities don’t do that, they look all different.
Which is understandable, because they’re all made by individual authors.
Just like it is on Linux distributions, for example.
And it’s not bad per se, it’s a part of individualism.
However, if they used a little bit more consistent look, say that of FreeDOS Editor, it would seem more professional.
I mean, Borland’s “Turbo Vision” look is not that different here.
It was widely being used by professionals, sort of an industry standard.
Of course, that’s all a matter of taste or a question of habit.
Some users like the diversity of DOS era, some want a more integrated, more homogenous experience.
That’s why I think that some users do hold onto DR DOS or MS-DOS, but simultanously may use parts of FreeDOS.
Because these DOSes may do visually better fit their line of favorite applications, do provide assitants such as MemMaker.
Anyway, these aren’t issues with the programming of FreeDOS.
Its function is fine, the years of work were worth it.
It’s not even about a request to change something,
this is just an attempt of an explanation why some users won’t switch.
PS: To be fair, some external MS-DOS 6.x utilities such as DEFRAG were bought from Symantec and do visually stick out.
Here, MS could have been more consistent, as well.
ScanDisk, MemMaker, Windows 3 Setup, MS Mouse setup etc all looked consistant, for example.
ATAPI CD-ROM driver installers and PAS16 Setup looked similar, too.
That blue-on-white scheme of DOS 5/6 was quite the standard.
What’s the point if real mode in CPUs since 8700K is only unlockable for corporate customers who buy private key from Intel.
Hm? I’m not sure if I do understand your wording.
Can you please consider to rephrase it? That would be really kind of you.
You can always an AMD CPU. Intel isn’t the only game in town.
I worked in a company that AMD. After IT staff accidentally the whole server we went back to Intel.
Sounds like you skipped a whole book in that sentence. In reality it was just that the person who made the decision only knows Intel exists right?
Why does it require an Intel CPU? I have a Harris Semiconductor 80286 that runs FreeDOS 1.3 just fine (AFAIK)
The original site says: “System requirements: Intel CPU · BIOS or UEFI “Legacy” mode · 640kB memory · to install: 20MB hard disk (or larger)”
I guess it’s a reference to “intel platform”, rather than ARM or Power PC. As in “intel Macs”.
“Legacy” mode means the CSM, the Compatibility Support Module. The BIOS payload of UEFI, so to say.
But you’re right, I think, terms such as iAPX, x86, i386, i8086 would be more traditional.
Personally, I also would recommend to compile the FreeDOS binaries for 80286 target by default.
Because, it would be a big performance improvement over MS-DOS 6, which is plain i8086 compatible.
Poor souls of 4,77 MHz IBM PCs and certain MS-DOS compatibles could then install a NEC V20/V30,
which has all the relevant 80286 instructions (minus PM).
If they haven’t already, it was a common upgrade. Turbo XT users often had them.
Juko mainboards had special support, optimized “V20 BIOSes” for PC clones were a thing since 1985.
The new INS, OUTS instructions alone are a great boost, already.
This would give FreeDOS an actual benefit over MS-DOS/PC-DOS and other old DOSes..
Or so I think. I’m just an user, after all.
It already does, but for the most part DOS machines from OEMs are for legacy software and often hardware. Obviously current hardware is going to have compatibility issues but there is a whole industry around adapting via various things, usually USB, but sometimes by network. Running DOS (FreeDOS) in a VM in these scenarios is almost ideal for flexibility.
I see, that makes sense. Thanks for the info.
For sophisticated needs there’s also PC-MOS/386 v5 on Github.
MOS used to be used as a real multi-user/multi-tasking operating system in the late 80s, like CCDOS or Wendin DOS.
I’m not affiliated, it just comes to mind because I was a PC-MOS user in the distant past.
At the time, it was nice to multitask things like Norton Commander, Clipper,
Turbo Pascal, MIX-C, GW-BASIC and ACAD on a 386
(also ran on 8088/286, albeit with less memory available).
Some text applications also ran via glass terminal (Wyse terminal here).
“Mortals” likely used TopView or DESQView instead.
DESQView/X in early 90s was very sophisticated, I think. It had that workstation look&feel.
I think it’s very positive that FreeDOS can use standard DOS device drivers and TSRs.
That’s something that multi-tasking DOSes due to their architecture usually don’t/didn’t support, of course.
DOS Plus 1.2, for example, was CP/M-86 based but ran DOS applications via PC-MODE compatibility layer.
The DOS compatibility was fair, but using normal DOS device drivers in config.sys wasn’t being possible.
Anyway, wish the very best for FreeDOS development.
I hope it will continue to evolve.
In embedded sector, it’s great for modern x86 SBCs for sure, I think.
No Arduino has the flexibility of an x86 SBC running a whole development system, for example.
FreeDOS also great for running professional software, of course.
Such as AutoCAD R13, 3D Studio Max or good old Deluxe Paint.
These programs are so feature complete they will never grow old.
That’s why I hope that FreeDOS will not just look backwards, but also will keep trying to improve.
Because even if real hardware will loose the ability to natively boot DOS,
virtual machines will still benefit from optimizations and support for newer technology.
Still very useful for installing Dell firmware that’s only released in .exe format (and which they stubbornly still call “BIOS” updates), on machines running anything other than windows.
Ugh, yes. At least EFI based tools are becoming more common, but so are Windows only online only updates. ….
Luckily most major vendors push them to fwupdate, but sometimes things are missing. Fujitsu was surprisingly on top of this before they cut the whole personal computer division.
Does this updated version have a way to create a drive to a directory when using Virtual Box? I tried installing on a couple of old Dell computers in the past and it was limited since there was no USB support either. But it’s great that it’s out there.