Torchizard

OS Compatibility

64 posts in this topic

Without adding an option to the HIMEM.SYS Command in CONFIG.SYS, you may have problems above 2.5GiB.

So since I will only be using 2GB, would that mean that it should mostly work except for, as you said, these apps that have bugs with large amounts of RAM?
I vaguely remember a DOS Extended Memory Application that choked over 2GiB because it used signed arithmetic.

With 2 GiB of RAM this shouldn't be an issue as slightly less than 2GiB will actually be available.

Edited by rloew
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 2 GiB DOS, particularly MS-DOS 7.x (the one that comes with win 9x), should work with no hiccups.

From the working DOS you can then install Win 9x using Usher method (limited to seeing/using 1 GiB RAM) or RLoew's patch (accessing all the RAM).

Take a look at the machine list (post #2) in my > 1 GiB RAM thread, and muse over it for a while, taking into account what has been said in this thread.

I was originally planning to install DOS 6.22 but since you brought up 7.x, can it be installed alongside 98, (eg. different partitions) and what are the benefits\added features over 6.22?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main advantage: FAT-32 and long filenames (LFN).

Yes, it's installed by default with 9x. I recommend 98Se.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's installed by default with 9x. I recommend 98Se.

I know that it is installed by default in 9x. I was asking if it can be installed on a separate partition alongside 98SE with its own version. So can you have this sort of setup:

Disk 1: DOS 7.x

Disk 2: Windows 98SE (which includes its own 7.x)

Disk 3: Windows XP

Edited by Torchizard
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's installed by default with 9x. I recommend 98Se.

I know that it is installed by default in 9x. I was asking if it can be installed on a separate partition (multiboot with 9x). So can you have this sort of setup:

Disk 1: DOS 7.x

Disk 2: Windows 98SE (which includes 7.x)

Disk 3: Windows XP

DOS needs to start from First Active Primary partition of First disk.

You need to change disk order in BIOS (or use a tool like grub4dos and change disk order with it).

But to run *only* DOS, if you plan to use grub4dos anyway, having it in an image makes a lot of sense.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's installed by default with 9x. I recommend 98Se.

I know that it is installed by default in 9x. I was asking if it can be installed on a separate partition (multiboot with 9x). So can you have this sort of setup:

Disk 1: DOS 7.x

Disk 2: Windows 98SE (which includes 7.x)

Disk 3: Windows XP

DOS needs to start from First Active Primary partition of First disk.

You need to change disk order in BIOS (or use a tool like grub4dos and change disk order with it).

But to run *only* DOS, if you plan to use grub4dos anyway, having it in an image makes a lot of sense.

I'm not wanting to install only DOS, I am wanting to create a multiboot system with each OS on a separate HDD. This brings up another question. Would the default XP bootloader work or do I have to install a 3rd party one such as GRUB?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not wanting to install only DOS, I am wanting to create a multiboot system with each OS on a separate HDD. This brings up another question. Would the default XP bootloader work or do I have to install a 3rd party one such as GRUB?

Yes and no.

Again, DOS NEEDS to start from active primary partition on first disk.

If you have three disks of which two contain DOS you need to change the disk order.

This can be done by a third party tool or by entering the BIOS and changing disk order (that may or may not be an option in your specific BIOS, and in any case, it is a nuisance).

The NTLDR is mainly a OS loader with very little capabilities as bootmanager and cannot exchange disks.

You can have DOS 6.22 and DOS 7.x+Win9x on the SAME disk and partition (as this is one of the intended uses of NTLDR and DOS 7.x/Windows 9x has a "special" provision for it) but not on different disks.

Among the third party tools, grub4dos (which is NOT GRUB and NOT GRUB2) has some dedicated features aimed to the "DOS/Windows world" among them the possibility to be chainloaded from NTLDR without needing any "install" and it is strongly suggested.

But, again, grub4dos has also the possibility to load and run a DOS from a disk image, the suggestion was to have (since you are going over a multi-disk approach):

  • a disk dedicated to DOS 7.x+Windows 9x (containing also the NTLDR+BOOT.INI+NTDETECT.COM)
  • a disk dedicated to Windows XP
  • any number of disk images residing on either of the two other disks (or on a third one) with each image dedicated to a given version of DOS

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not wanting to install only DOS, I am wanting to create a multiboot system with each OS on a separate HDD. This brings up another question. Would the default XP bootloader work or do I have to install a 3rd party one such as GRUB?

Yes and no.

Again, DOS NEEDS to start from active primary partition on first disk.

If you have three disks of which two contain DOS you need to change the disk order.

This can be done by a third party tool or by entering the BIOS and changing disk order (that may or may not be an option in your specific BIOS, and in any case, it is a nuisance).

The NTLDR is mainly a OS loader with very little capabilities as bootmanager and cannot exchange disks.

You can have DOS 6.22 and DOS 7.x+Win9x on the SAME disk and partition (as this is one of the intended uses of NTLDR and DOS 7.x/Windows 9x has a "special" provision for it) but not on different disks.

Among the third party tools, grub4dos (which is NOT GRUB and NOT GRUB2) has some dedicated features aimed to the "DOS/Windows world" among them the possibility to be chainloaded from NTLDR without needing any "install" and it is strongly suggested.

But, again, grub4dos has also the possibility to load and run a DOS from a disk image, the suggestion was to have (since you are going over a multi-disk approach):

  • a disk dedicated to DOS 7.x+Windows 9x (containing also the NTLDR+BOOT.INI+NTDETECT.COM)
  • a disk dedicated to Windows XP
  • any number of disk images residing on either of the two other disks (or on a third one) with each image dedicated to a given version of DOS

jaclaz

So what would be the advantages of using disk images instead of having the data 'raw'? And would these images be accessible to different OSes?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would be the advantages of using disk images instead of having the data 'raw'?

Not needing to change disk order and only use the third party bootmanager for those.

Better using the available devices.

A full install of DOS 6.x or earlier, including any DOS program of some utility ever written :w00t: and a considerable amount of data created with those programs would top at - say - 300 Mb.

If you are really clever and manage to actually have *all* programs EVER written for DOS :ph34r:, this will top at around 600/700 Mb.

Quick reality check, when DOS 6.22 came out it was year 1994 AD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_DOS_operating_systems

At the time the size of a common hard disk was within first CHS barrier, i.e below around 528 Mb:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/127105/article.html

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/1024_cylinder_528_limit.htm

likely below 250 or 300 Mb.

And would these images be accessible to different OSes?

Of course such images can be mounted on other OS, namely on DOS 7.x and on XP though there may be issues from Windows 9x.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would be the advantages of using disk images instead of having the data 'raw'?

Not needing to change disk order and only use the third party bootmanager for those.

Better using the available devices.

A full install of DOS 6.x or earlier, including any DOS program of some utility ever written :w00t: and a considerable amount of data created with those programs would top at - say - 300 Mb.

If you are really clever and manage to actually have *all* programs EVER written for DOS :ph34r:, this will top at around 600/700 Mb.

Quick reality check, when DOS 6.22 came out it was year 1994 AD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_DOS_operating_systems

At the time the size of a common hard disk was within first CHS barrier, i.e below around 528 Mb:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/127105/article.html

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/1024_cylinder_528_limit.htm

likely below 250 or 300 Mb.

So when you said that DOS needs to be on a active primary partition on the first disk, did you mean an active primary partition on a HDD that is a Master on IDE Channel 1?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when you said that DOS needs to be on a active primary partition on the first disk, did you mean an active primary partition on a HDD that is a Master on IDE Channel 1?

No. I mean first disk.

As in "Boot device order" (in BIOS) first (internal) disk.

If you prefer, it must be disk 0x80 or 128.

http://pcsupport.about.com/od/fixtheproblem/ss/bootorderchange.htm

More modern BIOSes allow having a number of (internal) hard disks selected in a given order, like HDD-1, HDD-2, etc.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written a Boot Manager that can choose among multiple Partitions on a single Hard Drive to Boot. With this you can have all of your Operating Systems on one Hard Drive. It is installed by my Advanced Partitioning Program RFDISK. It can be setup so you can choose which OS you want to boot by pressing a key at startup. I currently have Windows 95, 98SE, ME, XP, 7 and 8 on my Primary Hard Drive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written a Boot Manager that can choose among multiple Partitions on a single Hard Drive to Boot. With this you can have all of your Operating Systems on one Hard Drive. It is installed by my Advanced Partitioning Program RFDISK. It can be setup so you can choose which OS you want to boot by pressing a key at startup. I currently have Windows 95, 98SE, ME, XP, 7 and 8 on my Primary Hard Drive.

I seem to have found RFDISK on your website as part of the Terabyte plus package. Is there a way to buy it separately?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written a Boot Manager that can choose among multiple Partitions on a single Hard Drive to Boot. With this you can have all of your Operating Systems on one Hard Drive. It is installed by my Advanced Partitioning Program RFDISK. It can be setup so you can choose which OS you want to boot by pressing a key at startup. I currently have Windows 95, 98SE, ME, XP, 7 and 8 on my Primary Hard Drive.

I seem to have found RFDISK on your website as part of the Terabyte plus package. Is there a way to buy it separately?
It is available separately. It is listed in the Prerelease and Beta Section of the Software Catalog.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written a Boot Manager that can choose among multiple Partitions on a single Hard Drive to Boot. With this you can have all of your Operating Systems on one Hard Drive. It is installed by my Advanced Partitioning Program RFDISK. It can be setup so you can choose which OS you want to boot by pressing a key at startup. I currently have Windows 95, 98SE, ME, XP, 7 and 8 on my Primary Hard Drive.

I seem to have found RFDISK on your website as part of the Terabyte plus package. Is there a way to buy it separately?
It is available separately. It is listed in the Prerelease and Beta Section of the Software Catalog.

So I am assuming that this boot manager would also work with DOS.

Does the 98 HDD limit involve drives over 137GB or just single partitions?

And also, if I were to have a PCI SATA\IDE expansion card in my PC, with one set of HDDs on RAID 1, would that cause any problems in DOS or 98 (I'm guessing that XP would be new enough to not have any problems)

Edited by Torchizard
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.