If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dual-boot Win 98 + Win 3.1, without 2 partitions?
Hello.
I wish to dual-boot Windows 98 + Windows 3.1, but I don't want to work with partitioning my hard drive. Windows 98 is installed in a FAT32 partition - ~850MB. I thought about the following: - Windows 98 in C:\WINDOWS - Windows 3.1 in C:\WIN311 - boot in MS-DOS mode - CD to the appropriate folder and give "WIN" command Would this work? I fear that Windows 3.1' File Manager will choke on long file names and FAT32. []s -- Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Brazil - 29.55° S / 51.11° W "People told me I can't dress like a fairy. I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!" -- Amy Lee Running on: 300MHz Pentium, 128MB RAM, 8.4GB HD, 56k modem, Windows 98 SE Mozilla Firefox 1.0, Gravity 2.70, Wget as downloader |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chaos Master wrote:
Hello. I wish to dual-boot Windows 98 + Windows 3.1, but I don't want to work with partitioning my hard drive. Windows 98 is installed in a FAT32 partition - ~850MB. I thought about the following: - Windows 98 in C:\WINDOWS - Windows 3.1 in C:\WIN311 - boot in MS-DOS mode - CD to the appropriate folder and give "WIN" command Would this work? No. I fear that Windows 3.1' File Manager will choke on long file names and FAT32. Yes. among other things. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell stated:
- Windows 3.1 in C:\WIN311 - boot in MS-DOS mode - CD to the appropriate folder and give "WIN" command Would this work? No. So, what is the best solution to dual-boot Windows 98 and 3.1? I could create a small FAT16 partition for Win 3.1. []s -- Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Brazil - 29.55° S / 51.11° W "People told me I can't dress like a fairy. I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!" -- Amy Lee Running on: 300MHz Pentium, 128MB RAM, 8.4GB HD, 56k modem, Windows 98 SE Mozilla Firefox 1.0, Gravity 2.70, Wget as downloader |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell wrote in
: Chaos Master wrote: Hello. I wish to dual-boot Windows 98 + Windows 3.1, but I don't want to work with partitioning my hard drive. Windows 98 is installed in a FAT32 partition - ~850MB. I thought about the following: - Windows 98 in C:\WINDOWS - Windows 3.1 in C:\WIN311 - boot in MS-DOS mode - CD to the appropriate folder and give "WIN" command Would this work? No. Since I have done this, I am curious to know why you are so sure it would not work. I do not actually use the CD command to pick the systems, intead I use menu selection within "CONFIG.SYS". This also allows you to load drivers for devices not directly supported by 3.1. (Network, CD-ROM, Sound Blaster, etc.) Note also that IO.SYS will need to be patched first to prevent an "Incorrect DOS version" error when Windows 3.1 loads. Do a web search on W3XSTART for details. I fear that Windows 3.1' File Manager will choke on long file names and FAT32. Yes. among other things. Truncate yes, choke no. Try it and see. There is apparently a 3.1 file manager you can find on the web that supports LFNs if you really want. -- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:40:08 -0200, Chaos Master
I wish to dual-boot Windows 98 + Windows 3.1, but I don't want to work with partitioning my hard drive. Windows 98 is installed in a FAT32 partition - ~850MB. BuckarooBanzai "That won't work either" /BuckarooBanzai Reason is that Win3.yuk only runs on pre-Win9x DOS versions, and neither Win3.yuk nor these DOS versions support FAT32. If it were XP and Win3.yuk, I'd wave Virtual Machine as a solution. - Windows 98 in C:\WINDOWS - Windows 3.1 in C:\WIN311 - boot in MS-DOS mode - CD to the appropriate folder and give "WIN" command Would this work? I fear that Windows 3.1' File Manager will choke on long file names and FAT32. Your fears are well-founded; FAT32 failure will go waaay deeper than File Damager (think swap file management code, VCache, etc.) -------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Hmmm... what was the *other* idea? -------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, this reply is a bit late but...better late than never.
Mr. Chaos Master, Look for MS-DOS 7.1 by the China DOS Union http://newdos.yginfo.net/msdos71/ . The guy at this site said he has repackaged MS-DOS 7.1 (originally from Win98) hacked it so that you can run it with Win3x, Win95 and Win98. He has done quite an excellent job of hacking it and packing it with some additional DOS tools that work with FAT32, etc. He claims that it has been redistributed under the GNU Public Licensing. I'm not sure how legal the whole thing is but then I don't really care...I just use it. P.S. #1 Win3.x File Manager will not choke on the LFN. It will merely show them in the form filena~1.ext, filena~1.ext, etc. I'm sure you can do a Google search on LFN to quickly figure out the scheme that's going on here. P.S. #2 If you plan to use MS Office 4.3 with Win3.x + MS-DOS 7.1 you will need a program called Share Emulator 1.1 (SHAREMU.EXE) as the SHARE.EXE program does NOT work with FAT32. Share Emulator merely fakes file locking to allow Word, Excel, Access, etc. to open and run. This can be a little dangerous if you are not careful but it is the only way to get Office 4.3 to work. On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:40:08 -0200, Chaos Master wrote: Hello. I wish to dual-boot Windows 98 + Windows 3.1, but I don't want to work with partitioning my hard drive. Windows 98 is installed in a FAT32 partition - ~850MB. I thought about the following: - Windows 98 in C:\WINDOWS - Windows 3.1 in C:\WIN311 - boot in MS-DOS mode - CD to the appropriate folder and give "WIN" command Would this work? I fear that Windows 3.1' File Manager will choke on long file names and FAT32. []s |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
This is bleekay for forever:
Okay, this reply is a bit late but...better late than never. Mr. Chaos Master, Look for MS-DOS 7.1 by the China DOS Union http://newdos.yginfo.net/msdos71/ . The guy at this site said he has repackaged MS-DOS 7.1 (originally from Win98) hacked it so that you can run it with Win3x, Win95 and Win98. He has done quite an excellent job of hacking it and packing it with some additional DOS tools that work with FAT32, etc. He claims that it has been redistributed under the GNU Public Licensing. I'm not sure how legal the whole thing is but then I don't really care...I just use it. Thanks! I had already set another machine to run Windows 3.1 (just to mantain old applications), but this info is useful. []s -- Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Brazil - 29.55° S / 51.11° W / GMT- 2h / 15m "He [Babya] is like the Energizer Bunny of hopeless newsgroup posting....or should that be Energizer bBunny" - "ceed" on alt.comp.freeware, 24/1/2005 (to some groups: Yes, I use Windows and MS Office. So what?) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I've been doing that for half a decade but no FAT32. You use
"Previous versions of MSDOS" I think you have to edit MSDOS.SYS I have two separate versions of config.sys, autoexec.bat & al. It calls them ..W31 and .w40 when switching. I have a profile.bat that gets called from both autoexec, so I don't have to keep track of versions. It turns the switched-on versions into uneditables. Once in a while W98 complains about too many files whose names have been edited in 8.3 mode, so you use you OLD defrag program to remove the LONG file names. The program I use most of all is EMACS, which I have running in DOS. I use Kermit to log in to my Unix ISP. I prep spreadsheets on MultiPlan before I go into Windows to use Excel. I have an old student version of MatLab to test little proggies in DOS before building them up in Windows. I have plenty old compilers which run in DOS. And GNU has plenty of free programs that run in DOS - in fact my DOS resembles Unix a lot. In fact, I spend 75% of my time in plain DOS, 20% Win3 & 5% W98. The only reason I need W98 is to burn CDs - in fact CompUSA sold me W98 with the CD burner. I wish I could tweak Win3.11fWG to run my CD burner and to TWAIN my camera (it already TWAINs my scanner). Why? Well, I got my GW2K P5/75 in 12/95 and although I put nearly a year using Windows, eventually all the bugs and blowups got to me - I spent nearly $5k on software and nothing really worked (Of course, all the weasels who steal all their software don't mind upgrading!). I refused to get W95 because I said "If Win3 doesn't work, why should I trust you on 95?" (You have to realise ten years earlier I was a big fan on MicroSoft because they went out of their way to make EVERYTHING MS-DOS Generic. That was before IBM bodysnatchers swaped brains with MS over OS2. My 1985 machine was an 80186 8MHZ Ampro 2210 running off my college HP2621A terminal.) Basically I replace my main machine every ten years (I am not going to spend my life on an upgrade treadmill - I want to have files where I can FIND them!) Yeah and the only Y2K bug I got was a DOS proggie that didn't know about leap years in February so I went in with VEDIT and just swapped Sunday from the beginning to the end of the vector holding day names.) So much for all the Y2K futzing. And after I spent $750 on Mathematica 2.2.2 for DOS and I accidentally deleted some file, they wanted me to up $950 for a new Windows version.. so I got Maxima off sourceforge instead. You see, I consider my behavior well-balanced and sane. I consider those affected fashion-hoppers who feel compulsed to saty on the upgrade treadmill to be the lunejobs. - = - Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Fooey on GIU,{MS,X}Windows 4 Bimbos] [Cigar smoke belongs in veg food group] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:40:08 -0200, Chaos Master
I wish to dual-boot Windows 98 + Windows 3.1, but I don't want to work with partitioning my hard drive. Then you can't do it, basically. especially if... Windows 98 is installed in a FAT32 partition - ~850MB. ....given that: 1) Win3.yuk doesn't run on a Win9x's DOS mode 2) Pre-Win9x MS-DOS can't run off FAT32 3) Win3.yuk can't run off FAT32 On FAT16, you could swap in the correct-version C:\ boot files, i.e... IO.SYS D??SPACE.* MSDOS.SYS COMMAND.COM CONFIG.SYS AUTOEXEC.BAT ....and ensure Win9x and Win3.yuk use different base dirs, but you'd still run the risk of screwing up LFNs and thus Win9x. For example, NEVER use pre-Win9x MS-DOS or Win3.yuk disk utils (Scandisk, ChkDsk or Defrag) as these will totally mess up LFNs. Personally, I'd rather feed my hands to sharks than have anything to do with Win3.yuk ever again. ---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Cats have 9 lives, which makes them ideal for experimentation! ---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote in
: On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:40:08 -0200, Chaos Master Then you can't do it, basically. ...given that: 1) Win3.yuk doesn't run on a Win9x's DOS mode Given that Win 3.x will run under the DOS that comes with Win 95 OSR2 or Win 98, you should be able to do this in theory, but I have found that you will have trouble with IFSHLP.SYS being the wrong version if you desire networking under Win3.x. Do it instead with different CONFIG.SYS boot configuration sections for Win3.x vs Win9x. For Win3x, use the IFSHLP.SYS that comes with Win3x. For everything else (HIMEM, EMM386, MSCDEX, SMARTDSK etc.) use the ones that come with Win98. 2) Pre-Win9x MS-DOS can't run off FAT32 True. What you need to do instead is run the DOS that comes with Win 95 OSR2 or Win 98, and run Win 3.x on top of that. Do NOT try to run DOS 6.x on a FAT32 partition! 3) Win3.yuk can't run off FAT32 Absolutely False. I have done this. The only "issue" you will have is that Win3x does not find the DOS 7.1 version okay and will refuse to run. Use a utility called "W3XSTART" to patch the IO.SYS of DOS 7.1 (i.e. the DOS that comes with Win 98) so it will report a version compaticble with Win 3x. On FAT16, you could swap in the correct-version C:\ boot files, DON'T TRY THIS ...and ensure Win9x and Win3.yuk use different base dirs, but you'd still run the risk of screwing up LFNs and thus Win9x. For example, NEVER use pre-Win9x MS-DOS or Win3.yuk disk utils (Scandisk, ChkDsk or Defrag) as these will totally mess up LFNs. It is not the LFNs you risk losing, but the FATs. NEVER use anything that comes with FAT16 DOS on a FAT32 disk. In addition to the above utils, add INTERLNK / INTERSVR. Just booting the system will be enough to corrupt the disk. Your file names may have happy faces, but I guarantee that you will not. Personally, I'd rather feed my hands to sharks I never tried that, but I have succeeded in running Win3x on FAT32 disks. If you don't want to use different configuration sections in CONFIG.SYS, you could also just create a boot diskette for booting Win3x. -- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to do a Dual Boot where win98 and windows xp are kept separate? | John | General | 15 | January 20th 05 05:13 PM |
windows 98se monitor prob | fortwilliam | General | 10 | October 21st 04 08:53 PM |
error message | bill | General | 7 | August 10th 04 02:09 AM |
Dual Boot with Win 98 | Tom | Setup & Installation | 7 | July 24th 04 04:55 AM |
Dual boot ME and XP with 4 hard drives (questions) | [email protected] | General | 6 | July 6th 04 08:57 PM |