Webfonts are an unreliable technology at best -- you'd probably cry if you saw what a Mac does to the rendering of that font, or what it does in Opera and IE here since it auto enlarges 25% as I'm a large font/120 dpi user.
Expecting them to look the same across browsers, or even screen refreshes/redraws is an unrealistic expectation in the best of times, which is why as I rule I'd reserve a webfont like that to headings at 18px or larger, and not even TRY putting it on content areas.
You'd be better off focusing on content and using dynamic fonts with fluid widths, than worrying about a font that a lot of people are going to complain is hard to read... even if it is 'retro'.
This font in particular is problematic because it's based on the old IBM VGA font, a RASTER font... raster fonts NEVER translate well to vectors, so it's just further exacerbating an already bad situation.
This falls squarely into one of those "not viable for web deployment" concepts you'll occasionally hear me mention -- I'd forget it before it starts dragging you down the path towards a broken inaccessible layout and fat bloated slow page.
That said you also aren't quite using @font-face in a complete manner, and are missing the properties to make other browsers pay attention and omitted a lot of the values that help keep it consistent... like the multiple @font-face declarations, lack of declaring weight and style... done 'properly' it should look more like this:
src: url('fonts/dos.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'),
Though you'll need WOFF and SVG versions -- which is why I'd upload it to fontsquirrel.
Still, webfonts are 'cute', I really don't consider them real world deployable for anything more than eye-dropper scale use. They cause more problems than they solve and quite often destroy the ability for users to use a page comfortably... in this case you're trying to use raster shapes in a vector format; that never works at screen resolution sizes.