Dual-boot Win 98 + Win 3.1, without 2 partitions?
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.
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
Ron Martell
>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."
Chaos Master
> >- 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.
Mike Duffy
news:rfp5v092jctkkhfmd...@4ax.com:
> Chaos Master <e-m...@is.INVALID> 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.
--
Chaos Master
> 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 will have to check more into this.
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
>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?
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
bleekay
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 <e-m...@is.INVALID>
wrote:
Chaos Master
> 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?)
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
"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]
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
>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!
Mike Duffy
news:rnbe11t9l4d0ktk3s...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:40:08 -0200, Chaos Master <e-m...@is.INVALID>
>
>
> 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.
--
Steven V.A.
>
>> 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.
I'll confirm this.
I've also runned Win31x succesfully on top of DOS7.X
The only trouble I had was with the 32-bit disk access driver from
Win3.1
Steven
---
A White Sailboat...Raging Waters...A Golden Inca Temple...
And a Great Earthquake...A Giant Condor That Wheels In The Sky...
The Mysterious Cities of Gold: // http://www.themysteriouscitiesofgold.com //