Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Differences Between QB DOS 1.0, 2.0, and 2.1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Differences Between QB DOS 1.0, 2.0, and 2.1

    I've searched all over the place to find out the historical differences between these three versions, but nothing can be found.

    I actually have QB 1.0 revision 9b, and probably have the other two somewhere, but I can't seem to recall what the differences ever were.

    Anyone remember?

  • #2
    DOS 2.0 and 2.1 were more reliable than 1.0. 1.0 9B could be updated to 2/.0 or 2.1. I do not believe that any DOS version can be converted to any windows / Mac version.
    Joe Williams
    joewilliams@wavelinx.net
    Piedmont, Ok

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you Joe. I know that 1.0 had an issue when the file size went over around 5MB and started writing over the existing transactions. I don't know if 2.0 was any better. I think we bought 2.0 to get around this problem, but found that is was still the same.

      How was 2.0/2.1 more reliable? Also, do you remember anything different feature or interface-wise about 2.0/2.1 compared to 1.0?

      The DOS versions could definitely be upgraded to Windows. We actually bought the windows version (probably 1.0) that ran on 3.1. It was complete garbage compared to how lean and mean the DOS version was. Even today, I hate the windows versions and stick to the DOS ones. They run awesome under xp. Everything is done instantly.

      Comment


      • #4
        2.0 and 2.1 still had a size issue. They could be converted to Windows through 5.0, but not above that release.
        Yes, the windows versions are larger, but handle larger data file and have MUCH more function now and are fully Y2K compliant.
        Joe Williams
        joewilliams@wavelinx.net
        Piedmont, Ok

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you again for the reply Joe.

          So besides the size issue not being fixed between 1.0 and 2.x, was there anything else significantly different about 2.x?

          If Intuit ever restores the ability to quickly enter data and makes qb lean and mean again, I may consider it, but my migration path is definitely to something else that does for now.

          The great thing is, since the dos versions keep running and most of our companies don't have a lot of transactions, I won't have to migrate for a while anyways. There's no problems with y2k, even in 1.0. The "/" for the year is replaced with a "'". This even works just fine when using a qif to import data.

          Comment


          • #6
            There was not much functional changes in the DOS version, that I can remember.
            Joe Williams
            joewilliams@wavelinx.net
            Piedmont, Ok

            Comment


            • #7
              From what I've read online, it seems like there was a data structure change between 1/2.0 and 2.1. It seems like this was just for the Quickpay addon.

              Do you think this was all that it was or was it more?

              I somehow recall that when we tried 2.0, our data files almost doubled and wouldn't fit on a floppy disk anymore, so we just reverted back to 1.0.

              Comment


              • #8
                Quick Pay was part of the update. I remember that a DOS file could just increase on it's own because of unknown data.
                All of the DOC versions were unstable.
                Joe Williams
                joewilliams@wavelinx.net
                Piedmont, Ok

                Comment


                • #9
                  From what I remember, Quick Pay was just an addon. It would work with both DOS and Windows versions:
                  http://www.emsps.com/oldtools/quicken.htm#quickpay

                  Unknown data? What was your experience with this? I've not run into anything like this. Even DOS 1.0 is more solid than our state's online tax return system. No one makes quality debugged software anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It only worked with Window 3.0 an 4.0. Payroll was imbedded into 4.0 and higher.
                    Joe Williams
                    joewilliams@wavelinx.net
                    Piedmont, Ok

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Joe Williams View Post
                      It only worked with Window 3.0 an 4.0. Payroll was imbedded into 4.0 and higher.
                      Yep, I remember that too.

                      I'm still curious to hear about your experience with unknown data and any specific problems. I haven't seen anything like you've described even in 1.0.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It has been years since I supported DOS version. I do rember issues with memory and sudden file growth.
                        I do not remember how fix those issues.
                        Joe Williams
                        joewilliams@wavelinx.net
                        Piedmont, Ok

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am looking for a copy of Quickbooks 2.1 for dos. tpcolvin@gmail.com

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X