Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Torchizard

OS Compatibility

Recommended Posts

Having DOS 7 and Windows 95, 98 or 98SE on the same Partition is easy.

Add the following Line to the end of your AUTOEXEC.BAT File:

C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\COMMAND.COM

Your system will boot into DOS 7. Type "EXIT" and Windows 9X will Boot.

Sure :) but the "base" DOS 7 will be "shared" or "in common" (actually "same") with the Win9x/Me install.

As a matter of fact, if this is the case you can setup to boot normally to DOS 7 and then run "Win", unless my memory is fading, there are only issues - easily solvable - with CD support.

@dencorso

Maybe you are going a bit further than usual "loving" a tool.

A tool is something useful to do something, if you can manage to get that something, the tool you used is "good enough" or "convenient" or "valid".

As an example :whistle: our friend LoneCrusader :) believes that "MSCDEX" is a "better" tool than "SHSUCDX" and related programs, and "loves" it, the fact that he is wrong on this does not mean anything, the tool he chose does effectively what he wishes to do with it and that is more than enough:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157065-cddvd-usb-in-msdos-mode/

It is incorrect :realmad: to say that grub4dos is not well documented, and also vaguely offending :w00t: for the work that diddy :yes: and - to a much lesser extent - yours truly ;) put into assembling The grub4dos guide:

http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm

which while being not updated-to-the-latest-development of grub4dos, is IMNSHO very well written/assembled, very clear, and covers WHOLLY the "basic" use of the tool and to a certain extent also "advanced" uses.

Multibooting is anyway part of the "advanced" computing, IMHO besides learning the syntax/commands to setup/use any given tool, one needs to have some more than basic knowledge of how each OS boots, which behaviour (either by "design" or as "bug") it sports, which limitations it may have, etc., etc., in other words in some cases the issue is not with the lack of proper documentation but with the lack of specific knowledge on the procedures (independent from the tool(s) used) to reach the desired goal.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start with the standard disclaimer: As I said before, I simply *LOVE* GRUB4DOS.

Maybe you are going a bit further than usual "loving" a tool.

My disclamer (although it maybe could include a proper emoticon) is an admission that I may be more enthusisastic about GRUB4DOS than warranted (although I do think my enthusiasm is warranted) and, at the same time, my way of poking some fun at myself -- poker-faced (that's why no emoticon) -- precisely because I think such excessive manifestations pro-something should always be taken with several grains of salt.

It is incorrect :realmad: to say that grub4dos is not well documented, and also vaguely offending :w00t: for the work that diddy :yes: and - to a much lesser extent - yours truly ;) put into assembling The grub4dos guide:

http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm

which while being not updated-to-the-latest-development of grub4dos, is IMNSHO very well written/assembled, very clear, and covers WHOLLY the "basic" use of the tool and to a certain extent also "advanced" uses.

No offence at all was meant, in any way: I'm aware of diddy's Guide, and I think he (and you, BTW) deserve much respect and gratitude (and even some awe) worship.gif for having created such a great documentation (and, in your case, also for the considerable online support you've been providing people regarding, but not restricted to, GRUB4DOS, since way back when). But GRUB4DOS is a fast-paced in-progress project, so that keeping any documentation up-to-date is almost impossible per se, but it's even more here, because the developers of GRUB4DOS document (when they do) their additions/changes in Chinese only. [bTW, this is also the case for other great freeware, like ChipGenius and the Gavotte ramdisk... I guess we should consider starting to study Chinese, at least for reading...]

----

IMO, multibooting itself is both one of the most infuriating *and* one of the most rewarding experiences one can have in the realm of "advanced" computing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence at all was meant, in any way: I'm aware of diddy's Guide, and I think he (and you, BTW) deserve much respect and gratitude (and even some awe) worship.gif for having created such a great documentation (and, in your case, also for the considerable online support you've been providing people regarding, but not restricted to, GRUB4DOS, since way back when). But GRUB4DOS is a fast-paced in-progress project, so that keeping any documentation up-to-date is almost impossible per se, but it's even more here, because the developers of GRUB4DOS document (when they do) their additions/changes in Chinese only.

I know, I was kidding about the "offence" :).

JFYI, a number of features/commands are not even documented in Chinese :w00t:, some of the latest development is *somehow* (actually "sparsely") documented by either extorting :ph34r: info from the current maintainer Chenall or from the (unfortunately rare) occasions when previous maintainer Tinybit intervenes on English forums.

BUT Steve6375 has done some excellent work in documenting new features, often by downright examine the source code AND providing examples, though - as said - and till today - the diddy's guide and the README_GRUB4DOS.txt + a couple pages on RMPREPUSB (Steve's) site cover ENTIRELY the "basic" usage (such as the one needed here by the OP) and up to a very noticeable extent "advanced" use.

No real need to whine about the lack of documentation.

IMO, multibooting itself is both one of the most infuriating *and* one of the most rewarding experiences one can have in the realm of "advanced" computing.

Sure, but it is not - let us be frank at least among us ;) - "rocket science" nor "brain surgery".

What I was trying to point out was that long before grub4dos development was even started, *somehow* with much less powerful tools, no more than the "standard" MS NTLDR, and bootpart:

http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm

and - say - partita:

http://www.pedrofreire.com/crea1_en.htm

(and also with much less knowledge about the booting mechanisms and OS behaviour) we managed to double, triple (and more) boot DOS, Windows 9x and Windows NT (and later 2K and XP) alright (obviously with some added limitations/inconveniences, but nothing too much serious).

I mean, Why, in my day .....

http://reboot.pro/topic/1908-why-in-my-day/

.... and we LIKED it!

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example :whistle: our friend LoneCrusader :) believes that "MSCDEX" is a "better" tool than "SHSUCDX" and related programs...

Hmm.. really? For the record, I never stated or argued that MSCDEX was better. I simply refused to blindly accept the statement that SHSUCDX was better, as I have never had a problem with MSCDEX. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

the fact that he is wrong

Oh, the arrogance... :whistle::lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The emoticons and the egos are proliferating faster than a bunch of rabbits.

I won't even comment on my RFDISK. it would be lost in the din.

A number of choices have been offered, pick one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I'll probably do is wait until all the PC components arrive and see if each bootloader works and does what I want it to do.

Also, would I be able to install each OS separately (as in only have the corresponding HDD connected while installing each OS) and then connect them all and install a boot loader? Or would there be any problems in doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider myself "expert" enough to answer your question with a definite "yes or no," I have not actually used more than one HDD for booting purposes in a multiboot setup. But I will point out another issue that you will need to make a decision about before you actually install OSes.

Do you want each of these OSes to be able to access the other OSes' partitions? In other words, do you want to be able to access the Windows XP C: partition from Windows 98SE, or the 98SE C: partition from XP? - etc etc.

I know I will catch flak for this from some of the other users participating in this thread :whistle: , but I always hide each operating system from the others. If I want files to be accessible in multiple OSes I create "shared" partitions that are accessible to all the desired systems. I never allow 2K/XP in particular to see my Windows 9x partitions and infest them with NTLDR, etc. If some problem arises that requires the access of one OS partition in another OS, I can always go and make it visible for that particular occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, I hide each C: Partition from each other, sharing the same set of Extended Partitions.

I have additional Profiles that I use that makes some of them visible to each other so I can transfer data between them.

I have too many to make them all visible at the same time since they are Primary Partitions.

A DDO is required to be able to Boot DOS and Windows 98 from a Drive other than the BIOS Boot Disk. Even a Chain Loader is not enough. RFDISK uses a special MBR but it is NOT a DDO. So it will not support Booting from different Drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to install each OS in a partition one of the HDDs with all others disconnected, and it sometimes is the safest way to do it. It is possible to set all up then so that each OS never sees the others, in normal conditions, as described by LoneCrusader above. It also is possible to set all up so tha all see all, like I do (but then it becomes much easier and safer to avoid NTFS entirely, installing all the OSes in FAT partitions). Were I you, I'd assemble the machine, install XP and test the hardware thoroughly. Once I got satisfied all is working OK, then I'd plan how to set the multiboot system and set it up, not forgetting to backup each OS profusely throughout the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Torchizard

Again, there are several possible ways to accomplish the "final goal", by using different setups and/or using different tools (and/or tolerating some minor inconveniences when booting to "another" OS).

The "hide" from other OS is one of the possible approaches. :)

I personally believe it to be inconvenient and prone to errors, and have always set multiboot systems in such a way that everyone sees everyone else (within the limits of filesystems supported).

In the case of the mentioned OS's the setup "I see you all" is perfectly possible, but in practice the limitations of each OS (without using particular third party tools where available) will lead to a "telescopic" view.

  • DOS 6.22 can access only FAT12/16 filesystems and only within a range on a largish hard disk
  • DOS 7.x (and Win9x/Me) can acces only FAT12/16 AND FAT32 (still within a range on a largish hard disk)
  • NT 4.0 (not cited) can access FAT12/16 AND NTFS, BUT NOT FAT32 (I know it was not listed, putting this just for the record) also with limitations in sizes/addresses of partitions
  • 2K (not cited) can access FAT12/16 AND FAT32 AND NTFS, (BUT NOT exFAT)
  • XP can access FAT12/16 AND FAT32 AND NTFS (AND exFAT)

The "traditional" way I personally used for a long time on my systems (single disk 30 or 40 Gb, "Win2K centered") has been (JFYI):

C: 1 Gb or less DOS6.22 and DOS 7.x and NT 4.0 (Primary - FAT16) + Win2K "minimal recovery" + Later OS loaders (NTLDR+NTDETECT.COM+BOOT.INI)

D: 2 Gb or so Windows 95 or Windows 98 or Windows Me (Volume inside extended - FAT32)

E: 2 Gb or so "Common DOS Data" (Volume inside Extended - FAT32) <- but I had the Sysinternals FAT32 driver for NT 4.0

G: 5 Gb or so Win2K "Main" (Volume inside extended - NTFS)

H: 5 Gb or so Win2K or WinXP "Test System" (Volume inside extended - NTFS)

S: 1 Gb or so "Common Swap" (Volume inside Extended - FAT32)

F: 5 Gb or so "Common NT data" (Volume inside extended - NTFS)

I: 5 Gb or so "Temporary data" (Volume inside extended - NTFS) copy of data ready to be backed up

*: (variable) the rest, to be mapped as one or two Primary partition to try strange, new, OS's ;)

The above - which is seemingly complex - can (could) be achieved without particularly complex procedures or sophisticated tools/bootmanagers/etc.

I personally find that having the same volume always having (if accessible/mounted/mapped) the SAME drive letter prevents (actually makes less probable) that by mistake you do on a given volume something that you may later regret thinking that you are operating on "another" volume because you are booted on "another" OS with a different drive letter assignment.

But this is just me. :)

Such a configuration (if properly setup) is stable, and - anecdotal evidence at it's best - it has been running for several years without a hitch.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I got to ordering all my components just now and it turns out that the ATi Radeon 9800 XT I was going to get just got sold out :realmad:

So does anyone know of any good high performance AGP 8X Graphics Cards that have both 98 and XP drivers?

Edit: If anyone wants to know the motherboard for the card I'm using a ECS P4M800PRO-M (V2.0)

Edit 2: SO I found the nVidia GEForce FX5500 which is an AGP card . The nVidia driver website is a bit weird though as hey have Desktop Graphics>GEForce>5 FX drivers. So are the 5 FX drivers for FX5 X X X cards?

Edited by Torchizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I don't agree. A large number of games that work in DOS (though some of them may work in windows too) was released after 1994. Some of them need tens or even hundreds of megabytes. Some of these games even didn't have the Windows versions.

Sorry for replying to a rather old post :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree. A large number of games that work in DOS (though some of them may work in windows too) was released after 1994. Some of them need tens or even hundreds of megabytes. Some of these games even didn't have the Windows versions.

Sure :).

I was talking of work, not play.

In 1994 if not the very top, a near the top hard disk was 2.1 Gb (and SCSI), the average disk was 300 Mb to 1 Gb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png

The Quantum Fireball was the first "common" disk with a capacity over 1 GB, if I recall correctly, and that was already 1995, and everyone, or almost anyone upgraded to Windows 95 and DOS 7.0.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now I'm debating the PSU that I should use...

I've got a 400 watt one (I think) available right now with the right amount of connectors. Do you think that 400w is enough for this system or should I get a more powerful one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...