PDA

View Full Version : Which OS should I use?



bettablue
October 19th, 2011, 06:57 AM
I have an old Compaq computer manufactured in 1998 or 1999. It has a 233 Meg processor, 4 Gig hard drive, and 16 Megs of RAM. When I got it, my plans were to only use it for writing floppy disks for use in my IBM 5150 PC. There is the hard drive, a CD ROM, 3.5" floppy and a 5.25" DSDD 360Kb floppy drive installed. It also has a 4 port USB card installed and is currently running with DOS 6.22.

I am wondering if I should install another OS. I'm torn between Windows 3.1 or Windows 95. A friend came over last night to help me with some unrelated work, and he noticed the machine. When I asked his opinion, he mentioned that I would have more flexability if I were to install Windows 3.1 since I would still have access to DOS. Since my inentions are to only use this computer for extracting disk images and writing floppy disks, does it really matter which OS to use?

The next question here is this: What would be a good application to extract disk images with either Windows 3.1, or Win 95? I've heard a lot of people useing WinImage, but I'm not sure. Are there better, cheaper alternatives?

Which combination would you recommend?

barythrin
October 19th, 2011, 08:29 AM
Kinda depends what you're wanting to experience with the GUI. You can always boot back into legacy dos from 95 or 98 still, Win 3.x would be pretty cumbersome on that fast of hardware I would think. At least if you installed Windows 9x you could possibly explore some early Windows games that used DirectX or Direct3d although you might want to upgrade the RAM if you did 98.

commodorejohn
October 19th, 2011, 08:33 AM
I've run Windows 95 on a 233MHz machine with decent performance before. You may want more RAM, though.

krebizfan
October 19th, 2011, 11:30 AM
If the CD-ROM works with a DOS driver, you can install Win 3.1 or Win 9x from the CD which will be lots faster than creating the large number of floppies needed.

More RAM would be good depending on what applications you plan on running. Panzer Commander (game designed for Pentium 133/166 and Win 95) recommends 32 MB of RAM plus a video card with 4 MB.

DOS lives on!!
October 19th, 2011, 04:45 PM
Winimage and Teledisk both work with Windows 3.1. Question is wheather Windows 3.1 will support the USB card. What's the brand of it?

lutiana
October 19th, 2011, 05:07 PM
To me that hardware scream Windows 98SE (bump the RAM up though).

bettablue
October 19th, 2011, 06:42 PM
Winimage and Teledisk both work with Windows 3.1. Question is wheather Windows 3.1 will support the USB card. What's the brand of it?

Unfortunately, I really don't know what brand it is. I know it's only USB 1.0 and that's about it. None of the labeling is left. All I know is that it came installed in the computer when it was given to me. The card looks like some generic geriatric thing that someone just found. It does work with DOS 6.22 though. Hmm. Can I copy the driver from DOS before installing Win 3.1 or 95/98

tezza
October 19th, 2011, 06:43 PM
Yes, I agree. Windows 98. You could always set it to dual boot, if you wanted just straight DOS for those floppy disk imaging/making programs that don't want to have a bar of Windows. Although not the subject of this article (http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2010-02-18-writing-cpm-from-1.2mb-disks.htm) (it's actually about writing 5” CP/M floppy disks on a 1.2MB PC drive with Windows 98 ). It does however mention how to configure a Win 98 machine for dual booting.

Tez

Maverick1978
October 20th, 2011, 07:08 AM
I'm with Tezza on this... Win98 can dual-boot with pure DOS, allowing you to stay away from Win9x's "legacy DOS"... It's the way I rolled with my Pentium-era machine back in the day, and it works nicely. Make sure you've got about 64mb of RAM though, just to have some breathing room (more if your machine can go higher - as cheap as RAM is, why not?)

have fun!

barythrin
October 20th, 2011, 08:40 AM
I'm not 100% sure but another thing to consider is I don't recall Windows 95 having support for USB until version C. I don't know if I've ever seen a legit version C myself, 98 of course had native drivers for USB and 98se was much more stable than first edition of 98 but yes you'd want more RAM for a smoother ride or disable all the graphic animations, etc.

commodorejohn
October 20th, 2011, 10:08 AM
Win95 doesn't have support for USB out of the box, but I've installed USB drivers on at least 95-B without problems.

Maverick1978
October 20th, 2011, 02:29 PM
I've a Win95-B disc at home that has USB support on it out of the box, however IIRC, it was preliminary support as USB was in its infancy at the time. It worked well enough with most keyboards, mice, printers, etc but had some troubles with some USB NICS and cable modems (as I saw when I first hired on at the cable co I work for doing cable modem installations a decade ago). I believe that Win95-C included full USB support, similar to Win98.

That said, ISTR that a true dual-boot scenario with Win95 and DOS 6.22 couldn't occur without a 3rd party boot manager? At least that's why I went to Win98/DOS 6.22 back in the day. Either way, IMO, the performance of Win95 vs Win98 on a low-end Pentium with sufficient RAM is close enough that I'd never consider using Win95 unless I was going for "historically accurate" (or trying to match the "Windows 95" sticker on the computer's casing!)

commodorejohn
October 20th, 2011, 02:56 PM
Depends on whether you disable crap like Active Desktop on 98, if I recall correctly. That, and using 98lite to put back the lighter '95 Windows Explorer.

njroadfan
October 20th, 2011, 03:36 PM
That said, ISTR that a true dual-boot scenario with Win95 and DOS 6.22 couldn't occur without a 3rd party boot manager? At least that's why I went to Win98/DOS 6.22 back in the day. Either way, IMO, the performance of Win95 vs Win98 on a low-end Pentium with sufficient RAM is close enough that I'd never consider using Win95 unless I was going for "historically accurate" (or trying to match the "Windows 95" sticker on the computer's casing!)

If you upgraded from a machine that already had DOS 6.22 boot files on it, they were renamed and the Windows 95/98 F8 boot menu added a option labeled "Previous Version of MS-DOS". You could add it after the fact by editing 9x's MSDOS.SYS, but it was a PITA because 6.22's renamed IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS needed to be on track 0 of your hard drive to boot properly from that menu. You had to SYS.COM from a MS-DOS 6.22 boot disk (backup 9x's MSDOS.SYS first!), rename the files to what the 9x boot loader looks for (I think it was changing the extension to .OLD), and then SYS.COM from a MS-DOS 7.x disk and coping your 9x backup of MSDOS.SYS to boot back to Windows 9x.

bettablue
October 20th, 2011, 08:03 PM
Thanks for all of the great responses.

I see this is turning into a much bigger issue than I first realized. No problem though. I have Win 3.1, Win 95 and Win 98 SE all on original CD. Your responses all seem to be one of which OS will support USB more than anything. I've rebuilt Win 3.1 config.sys files before, and from what I remember, it wasn't really all that difficult. And, both Win 95 and 98 are very familiar too. Each have their good and bad points.

However, it seems too, that the main purpose of this machine got lost somewhere in this thread. Remember, the only reason I got this machine is to make new floppy disks for my IBM 5150 PC using a native 360Kb DSDD 5 1/4" floppy drive. Having USB on the system would be nice, but ultimately not that important. The really important thing I need on the computer is the the ability to bring files in from my Windows 7 computer. The CD ROM will work fine for that. Believe it or not, a single CD will hold all of the 4500 plus programs I have for my IBM 5150.

Now, don't get me wrong. It really would be nice to have everything working on this old beasty, but as it stands, if it will take disk images and make floppies from them, then the computer will serve it's purpose. I'm not planning on using it as a vintage gaming machine, or even as a cheap word processor; at least not now.

It also looks like I may have to disconnect the 3.5" internal 1.44 Meg floppy drive any way for some time. The computer tries to access both floppy drives at the same time. I know the 5 1/4" drive will need to be configured as a slave, but since it doesn't have any recognizable markings on it, I will have to guess what jumpers need to be set. As near as I can tell, it seems to be a Mitsubishi, but again, there are no model numbers on it to be totally positive. It does fit the front 5 1/4" expansion bay above the CD ROM drive perfectly though. I think trial and error will be my friends on that one, along with a little time.

I think I know what I'm going to do. For now, I'll probably remove the USB card and get the floppy drive configured. I think I have some RAM to install in it too. 512 Megs will make this thing scream regardless of which OS I decide to use.

I'll post something once I get it working over the weekend.

Rick Ethridge
October 20th, 2011, 08:50 PM
I have an original Netram 233MMX system with a 16 meg Creative Banshee video card and 256 meg of SDRAM. It has a 52X CD_ROM and a burner. It runs Win98SE with the unofficial service pack 2 "roll-up". Other than the browser is slower than molasses (even with a 10/100 NIC), it works well with a USB scanner. I may elect to install a USB 2.0 card instead of the 1.1 card and a supplemental HDD controller card with a faster hard drive..

DOS lives on!!
October 21st, 2011, 03:25 AM
It also looks like I may have to disconnect the 3.5" internal 1.44 Meg floppy drive any way for some time. The computer tries to access both floppy drives at the same time. I know the 5 1/4" drive will need to be configured as a slave, but since it doesn't have any recognizable markings on it, I will have to guess what jumpers need to be set.
Along with setting the jumpers, have you set the correct drive types in the BIOS? A=1.44. B=360k. I've had this problem before on several different computers. Sometimes, both drives will be accessed, but the only one with a disk in it will be read from.

barythrin
October 21st, 2011, 08:59 AM
Yup, that's what I wasn't sure about either was your real purpose behind the system. So if you're really not planning on using it for current or era-appropriate stuff and it's just a man in the middle machine which ever OS you want is fine. You may want to dual boot it or just stick with 3.x (or change the win.ini to load command.com instead of win.com or whatever it was in 9x) so you don't have to reboot back into dos mode each time you want to play. That's assuming you find a 16-bit application that does what you want though. If you need 32-bit WinPE execution you'll end up wanting 98se again. However if it's just a file system then I'd probably load the lightest OS and make your boot time the quickest to get to what you want to do.

On a side note, this does bring up some possibilities you might be able to find for cheap to bypass the middle-man. Something like a Xircom parallel to ethernet card on the 5150 could allow you the option of copying a disk image to the 5150 and recreate it from the 5150 (I haven't done this so it does depend on the software being out there), or booting off an MS-DOS disk and using intersrv/interlnk and a null modem cable to mount your hard drive off a newer/older system and transfer files that way.

Maverick1978
October 21st, 2011, 03:33 PM
IIRC, he's looking for (or has?) an XT-IDE card for the 5150. If that's the case, then the software to make the Xircom parallel ethernet work is relatively trivial. Once the 5150's on the network, just ftp it all over using mTCP's product suite.

For a man-in-the-middle, I'd still suggest going with Win98 SE. IIRC, WinImage has a relatively late version that works well with it (I use it on a PII-300mhz which runs 98se since the day it was purchased new by my mother - works pretty well, but then again, I've maxed the ram on that board!)

If you're not going to use WinImage to write stuff (you don't have to, as I recall Dave Dunfield's program supports its formats, as does Mike Bruttman's), then any old OS should be fine. WinImage is convenient primarily for the GUI and ease-of-use.

(and solitaire while you write and read disks!)

WelshWizard
October 21st, 2011, 11:16 PM
I would go for Windows 95 as Windows 98 will slow it down and you should be able to get every thing working with 95 even if it means searching for a driver. the space saved with 95 over 98 will be very noticable on a 233 based compuer with a small hard drive, which you may find is limited by the computers BIOS to a small size hard drive by modern standards

bettablue
October 22nd, 2011, 09:07 AM
[QUOTE=Maverick1978;198067]IIRC, he's looking for (or has?) an XT-IDE card for the 5150. QUOTE]

Thanks for keeping up.... Yes, I'm still waiting for the next revision of XTIDE. I'll be installing it with an adapter so that when I'm done, my 5150 will have a CF card slot on the back. Since my primary Windows 7 computer has a great card reader, it will make for much easier file and program transfers.

Now back on to the Compaq... The Compaq has a 4 Gig hard deive installed. I don't know if the drive has been partitioned. And, I know DOS 6.22 will only read a partition of up to 2 Gigs, so, I'm thinking about doing as a few of you suggested. By setting up a dual boot, one partition running DOS, and the other running Windows 95; this will be a lot better for the sheer fact, that I can actually test some of the programs before making a diskette and finding out that it's something I either don't want, or need.

Also, there are 3 slots for memory, and all 3 slots are populated. Again, I won't know how much RAM is really installed until I get it set up.

I'll know what the final specs are this afternoon when I get it all set up and running. I'll also post my findings either later today, or tomorrow.

Last question before I get started. If I go into the BIOS, will I have the choice to set up the 5 1/4" drive as drive B, or do I HAVE to set the jumpers on the drive before going into the BIOS? Is there anything else I need to look at?

bettablue
October 22nd, 2011, 04:44 PM
vAll went well with configuring the floppy drives. The 5.25" floppy is now drive "A", and the computers' original 3.5" - 1.44 Meg is drive "B" However, this computer hasn't really been used for some time and the CMOS battery is dead. I'll be making a trip to Wal~Mart tomorrow, so I can get a battery and a new mouse for it there. Once the battery is replaced, I'll configure the drives in the BIOS and install Windows.

This is really turning out to be a pretty nice old computer. Now I need to locate my old Windows 95 CD.

bettablue
October 24th, 2011, 10:31 AM
I tried installing Windows 3.1 on the computer last night. However, after inserting the CD, the computer seemed to hang. Although I could enter some commands, the computer wouldn't actually do anything but sit there. It would allow me to navigate to other directories, but it wouldn't run any executables with the CD in the drive. So, I'm heading to Fry's later today to get a new CMOS battery and a couple cables needed to install an additional drive into my Windows 7 computer. I'll try it again after I replace the battery and set up the BIOS. I haven't tried using the floppy drives just yet, because of the dead CMOS battery. But as soon as I can get something going, I am going to try copying some of the DOS programs off the machine before installing Windows. Since the drive is pretty old, I'm going to swap it out for a newer one. I have several in a box somewhere. I might even have a DVD writer.

Next: The computer has a Windows 98 sticker on the front of the case. But there are no Windows codes anywhere on it. I'm still thinking about installing Windows 3.1 or 95, and would love to dual boot this computer. Then I can set up a seperate partition on the 4 Gig drive for runnning straight DOS. Has anyone ever really worked with DOS 2000? I have all available versions of DOS, with the exception of 2000 and was wondering if getting a copy would be worth the effort.

Defiant1Dave
October 26th, 2011, 06:05 AM
It's a no-brainer in my opinion...... use Win98 SE. It'll do everything you've mentioned, plus it's about as stable as they get. AND unlike DOS, it'll easly support all of your hardware, like the USB ports.

bettablue
October 26th, 2011, 07:18 AM
It's a no-brainer in my opinion...... use Win98 SE. It'll do everything you've mentioned, plus it's about as stable as they get. AND unlike DOS, it'll easly support all of your hardware, like the USB ports.

I think I will do just that. But I'm still going to partition the disk and dual boot the computer so I can have a later version of DOS running on it too.

bettablue
November 7th, 2011, 08:02 PM
It's a no-brainer in my opinion...... use Win98 SE. It'll do everything you've mentioned, plus it's about as stable as they get. AND unlike DOS, it'll easly support all of your hardware, like the USB ports.

Windows 98 is now installed and working fine. It doesn't seem all that long ago that I upgraded my old Wingows 95 computer to Win 98. Time flies. Still, I like the fact that this computer has so many options for bringing data into it. Plus, having USB, parallel and serial ports available makes it easy to connect to my 5150 too. Thanks everyone for the recomendations. The machine is fine and making floppies as we speak.

There is one thing I'm not quite sure about though. Windows 98 has an option to boot into DOS. Is this true DOS or just a command shell?

modem7
November 7th, 2011, 11:26 PM
There is one thing I'm not quite sure about though. Windows 98 has an option to boot into DOS. Is this true DOS or just a command shell?
"When you select Restart in MS-DOS mode from the Windows 95 or 98 shut-down dialog, your machine rapidly boots into what appears to be a pure MS-DOS session. It may be closer to 'real' DOS than running a DOS window, but it still isn't true MS-DOS in the old sense of the word. When you select this option, your PC doesn't actually reboot. Windows simply unloads most of itself from memory, leaving behind useful segments of the shell, such as support for long file names - list a directory in this mode and you'll see that you still get the full rather than truncated DOS names. What happens is that your PC actually runs a shortcut called Exit to DOS, which you can customise yourself - but more on this later."

krebizfan
November 8th, 2011, 06:10 AM
The F8 startup menu will boot to the underlying Win98 DOS 7 version. This is modified from the older DOS versions to support Long File Names and FAT32 which can cause some DOS programs problems. I think there were a few other bugs specific to DOS 7. But yes, that is a full DOS; if you want to relaunch Windows, rebooting isn't needed just run WIN.COM (type "win").

Agent Orange
November 8th, 2011, 02:36 PM
bettablue:

This may make you feel a little better. This last weekend I revived one of my old 486 projects. About a year and a half ago I bought a 'NIB' 486 Premio motherboard and a 'NIB' Intel 86 Mhz POD w/64 MB 72-pin DRAM - all for under $75. The mobo was manufactured in 1995 and has a lot of advanced features, like its own mouse driver for the BIOS menu, onboard floppy, IDE, printer, and serial ports, etc. The best feature is the three PCI slots as well as five 16-bit ISA slots. Problem was I could never get it to setup properly - until now. While I was at my local Micro Center, I found a PCI IDE-RAID controller on clearance table for $6.95. The system has a 3.5 & 5.25 floppies as well as a CD-ROM. I purchased several 'NIB' Samung 4002H 40 GB hard drives a while back for $12 each and used one of them for this setup. The video is a PCI Matrox Millenium and the last PCI slot is a D-Link DWL-510 wireless adapter. The sound card is a run-of-the mill ISA 16-bit SB Vibra and there is also an ISA 8-bit NIC. So that's the hardware - nothing special or out of the way. Previously I had problems getting the BIOS to setup the HD, even though the BIOS supports LBA and BLOCK modes, the hard drive would always corrupt (I was using a Western Digital 80 GB partitioned down to 2 GB). Long story short - I parked it in my garage loft. The key to this project's rebirth was the ATA-133 PCI IDE controller. I booted my WIN98 setup disk in the A drive and the WIN98SE CD setup without a hitch. It installed all of the drivers except for the D-Link (takes a revised driver not available on the original setup CD). The PCI IDE controller doesn't require a driver execpt for the RAID function (RAID CD supplied). The BIOS is now happy with the 40 GB HD. I'm in the process of evaluating some games, like Doom and comparing the results to another 486 that runs a AM-X5-133ADW oc'd to 150Mhz. I believe WIN98SE is the best choice - solid and not too many 'gotchas'. Good luck with your project.

bettablue
November 8th, 2011, 03:01 PM
Nice story Agent Orange. Thanks for the telling... Yes, now that I have the computer up and running, I am very pleased with it; especially since it directly supports the 5.25" 360Kb floppy. I was actually able to select it in BIOS. So far I have been way to busy with work and my wife coming home from the hospital after her back surgery, to do much else, but I am going through the programs and games I have. There must be over 2000 programs. Then there are the games, of which there are 3500 or so I got from Hargle.

Back on subject though. The Compaq was a good find for me. It came to me as a freebie after posting an ad on Craigs List. I was actually quite surprised at how many people had computers to give away. If I had the room, I would have close to 50 or 60 machines taking up space. Too bad none are really worth anything. I like the Compaq too for the simple fact that it takes up very little room. The bad part is that because it is so small, everything is so damned tight, it's hard to manipulate the ribbon cables, especially for the addition of the 5.25" drive. Then there is the hard drive. At 4 Gigs, it doesn't take much to fill it up. I have to be careful with how much I bring over to it for inzipping and writing floppies. Still, I think some of my old games, like Ripper, will finally see some use again. Lastly, I have it connected to a $5.00 17" CRT monitor. I am trying to find something much smaller to work with. Maybe a 15", or even a 9 inch would be great for saving some space. 9 inch displays aren't all that easy to locate.

This whole thing was a lot of fun for an old geek like me. Too bad the wife doesn't see it that way. All she sees is another computer taking up space. Oh well.

modem7
November 9th, 2011, 11:44 PM
The F8 startup menu will boot to the underlying Win98 DOS 7 version. This is modified from the older DOS versions to support Long File Names and FAT32
As an experiment, I booted my Windows 98 SE machine from a Windows 98 DOS diskette (as created from within Windows 98).
On listing the directory of C: drive, I saw no Long File Name support (e.g. "Program Files" showed up as "PROGRA~1").
That indicates to me that the DOS that underpins Windows 98 does not, by itself, support long file names.

bettablue
November 10th, 2011, 05:25 AM
As an experiment, I booted my Windows 98 SE machine from a Windows 98 DOS diskette (as created from within Windows 98).
On listing the directory of C: drive, I saw no Long File Name support (e.g. "Program Files" showed up as "PROGRA~1").
That indicates to me that the DOS that underpins Windows 98 does not, by itself, support long file names.

While looking at some of the programs that I had downloaded onto the machine, I ran a few from within Windows 98 directly. While some of the files did have more than 8 character names, opening the command prompt displayed these long file names. But when booting into DOS mode, these were trunkated. That verified Modem 7s experiment.

What I found especially nice nice about Windows 98 was the fact that I could run these programs while in the Windows environment. That is useful to me because I can test the programs before writing them to disk. My next little project is to put together a DOD 3.3 boot disk for my 5150 using one of the DOS shell programs. I have to look in my DOS 3.3 manual to see how to write an autoexec file that will automattically load certain programs when booting off the modified diskette. Some of the DOS graphical interfaces are pretty useful. Eventually, I'll be replacing the 4 Gig drive in this computer so I can dual boot the machine with Windows 98 on one partition and DOS with it's shell program on another. In that case, I want to create a DOS 2000 boot using the same DOS manager shell program. I guess then too, I'll really get into DOS more so I can learn to incorporate drivers for the DVD ROM and USB support.

Like I said previously, this old machine is definitely going to be a lot more useful than I originally thought.

I must say, this whole project was, and is, really a lot of fun to mess around with.

Agent Orange
November 10th, 2011, 06:10 AM
As an experiment, I booted my Windows 98 SE machine from a Windows 98 DOS diskette (as created from within Windows 98).
On listing the directory of C: drive, I saw no Long File Name support (e.g. "Program Files" showed up as "PROGRA~1").
That indicates to me that the DOS that underpins Windows 98 does not, by itself, support long file names.

You might want to check the Wiki out on that point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_filename

Chuck(G)
November 10th, 2011, 07:51 AM
Doesn't everyone load their Win9x CONFIG.SYS fle with DOSLFN (http://adoxa.110mb.com/doslfn/) for long filename DOS mode support?

kbit
December 4th, 2011, 05:32 PM
i know this is an older post but just wanted to add my two cents worth. a few years ago i set up a win98 machine with a 233mmx /384mb ecc ram {still use it} to boot to dos . i just used all the dos programs in windows 98 folder/disk { first put all your dos 6.22 files in c:\dos} and copy all newer 98 dos apps to c:\dos and say yes to overwrite any with same name. now just set up your config and autoexec . you boot to dos and can run any program { don't forget setver} in dos as it should be run and when you need windows just type win, win98 starts and away you go. {thats why you copy and overwrite}

as for floppys all but the very oldest { like 360kb and a few even more obscure early models} are factory set as "b" drive and it is their place on cable that determines whether they are read "a" drive . { the twist on cable changes "b" to "a" }. another factor to consider is that cables can differ and cause a seeming "failure" when trying to use floppys in different computers {never throw out a floppy drive unless you are sure it is "dead" , i keep a boxfull of floppy cables and try many before giving up on a drive}
two cents worth!

bettablue
December 8th, 2011, 05:35 PM
Sorry to revive this thread yet again, but I'm still having some problems with getting my 5150 to read anything created by the Compaq I rebuilt. The Compaq now has Windows 98 installed on a single partition, along with a few pieces of software like WinImage, WinZip and WinRar. I was successful at copying all of the programs I had in zip files to their own directories and have formatted a 100 Meg zip disk following modem7's instructions from his page. The issue I'm having is that for some reason I can't get the Compaq to set up any 16 bit partitions. It will only format them in 32 bit. My zip drive appears to be a later model, but it is still a 100 Meg drive, using 100 Meg disks set up into 3 partitions of 32Megs each. I then configured a bootable MS-DOS 3.30 boot disk and added an auto exec.bat file to load the correct driver from one of 2 parallel ports.

Another issue is that the single height 5.25" 360Kb DSDD drive I installed into the Compaq also seems to be out of alignment and out of synch with the drives on my 5150. (Remember Chuck G aligned both of the 5150s floppy drives for me a couple of months ago) Is there a tool to download to test floppy disks for alignment and possibly to see just how far off it might be? I know aligning a floppy drive is a PITA, so I'm just hoping to get SOMETHING working so I can start using all of the software I have for the 5150.


So, yes, I am very pleased with my 5150. And again, thanks to you all for your assistance. Once I can get access to my software library, I'll be a very happy Santa!

modem7
December 8th, 2011, 06:29 PM
The Compaq now has Windows 98 installed on a single partition, along with a few pieces of software like WinImage, WinZip and WinRar. I was successful at copying all of the programs I had in zip files to their own directories and have formatted a 100 Meg zip disk following modem7's instructions from his page. The issue I'm having is that for some reason I can't get the Compaq to set up any 16 bit partitions. It will only format them in 32 bit. My zip drive appears to be a later model, but it is still a 100 Meg drive, using 100 Meg disks set up into 3 partitions of 32Megs each.
I've seen similar issues. The answer for me was to partition/format the ZIP100 disk (using palmZIP's ZIPMAN tool) in the parallel port ZIP100 drive on my 5150.
I could then use that disk in the 5150 and older computers.


Is there a tool to download to test floppy disks for alignment and possibly to see just how far off it might be?
No, not for download.
See earlier thread http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?27844
The Kodak floppy shown in that thread will inform you how far off the alignment is.

kbit
December 8th, 2011, 08:33 PM
if you have serial ports or parallel ports on both machines try this

http://www.briggsoft.com/fmdos.htm - works with dos 3.0 and up - linkmavin for win32 to dos

of course getting right cable could be difficult { every "null" modem cable i ever bought was simply a straight thru cable } so i made my own. i believe you could then write directly to floppy on 5150 or whatever storage you have . just a thought, good luck!

p.s. here's one site for pinouts http://www.nullmodem.com/NullModem.htm

bettablue
December 14th, 2011, 06:49 AM
Update:
I removed the 3.5" floppy drive and installed an internal 100 Meg Zip drive. I am still trying to get all of the software I need to configure a couple of the zip disks, but overall, the Compaq seems to accept everything I've thrown at it. As for the zip disk configuration, that is handled under another thread. I am making progress and have finally formatted a zip disk using my IBM 5150. Now I just need to get the Compaq to read the seperate partitions. I finally found the iomega software that came with the internal drive, but even it doesn't have the option to partition the disk properly. My 5150 was able to partition and format the disk OK though, so I guess I'm one more step closer.

Are there any other things I should be looking at while I'm doing this?

modem7
December 15th, 2011, 02:44 PM
I am making progress and have finally formatted a zip disk using my IBM 5150. Now I just need to get the Compaq to read the seperate partitions. I finally found the iomega software that came with the internal drive, but even it doesn't have the option to partition the disk properly. My 5150 was able to partition and format the disk OK though, so I guess I'm one more step closer.
When you write, "the seperate partitions", I presume mthat you are writing of the second and third partitions.

I don't have access to my ZIP100 stuff presently, but I seem to recall that my 'modern' Windows machines don't see the second and third partitions on the ZIP100 disk. Compgeke alluded to the issue in the other thread.

The Internet suggests that it's because of the way in which Windows treats removeable media. There is a fair amount of discussion in regard to the issue on USB sticks. Some of that discussion is about gaining access to the partitions by clearing the 'removable bit'. (e.g. http://www.ghacks.net/2009/04/17/partition-usb-flash-drives/)

For me, the first 32MB partition on my ZIP100 disks is enough spave to use for transferring files between my vintage and modern machines.

Todd82TA
January 4th, 2012, 03:41 PM
I actually just mentioned this in another post. With a 233 (Pentium 2?) you should have NO problems running Windows 98 SE. That's what I run. I've got a 386 that runs DOS 6.22, and then I run pretty much all the other vintage stuff on the Pentium 2. I've got 256mb of ram, but you could easily get away with even 64mb. If I still have the two chips I took out of there, I'd be happy to send them to you for free if it's in the US. Otherwise, I'll still send it to you, but I'd want you to cover shipping.

Anyway, with Windows 98 SE, I have my computer auto-boot into DOS. As far as I'm concerned, it's basically still a DOS machine. Every once in a while I'll type "WIN" and it loads Windows 98 SE.

If you modify MSDOS.SYS (I believe) or either it's IO.SYS, there should be a line in there that says "Boot Gui=1" ... if you change that to a 0, it will boot to DOS directly. Works just the same as if you had DOS 6.22 installed. Windows 98 SE stores all of the DOS utilities in a seperate folder, I think it's under like Windows\Command. I think the DOS that comes with Windows 98 SE is basically called DOS 7.xx.

Windows 95 and Windows 98 STILL run on top of DOS, unlike Windows NT, 2000, and XP.

bettablue
January 4th, 2012, 05:39 PM
Hey Todd...

I saw your post in the other thread. I ended up installing and running Windows 98SE Plus! I like it that way because I still have Windows fincionality, but I can still get to REAL DOS just by opening the commend prompt. It works for me. I have tested a lot of the games and other software on it prior to writing them to floppy, or as in my case committing them to a Zip drive for bulk loads/transfers. BTW, I also added the tool to DOS for long file names too. That eliminated a lot of issues with duplicate write projects. Like I said, this works for me quite well.




I actually just mentioned this in another post. With a 233 (Pentium 2?) you should have NO problems running Windows 98 SE. That's what I run. I've got a 386 that runs DOS 6.22, and then I run pretty much all the other vintage stuff on the Pentium 2. I've got 256mb of ram, but you could easily get away with even 64mb. If I still have the two chips I took out of there, I'd be happy to send them to you for free if it's in the US. Otherwise, I'll still send it to you, but I'd want you to cover shipping.

Anyway, with Windows 98 SE, I have my computer auto-boot into DOS. As far as I'm concerned, it's basically still a DOS machine. Every once in a while I'll type "WIN" and it loads Windows 98 SE.

If you modify MSDOS.SYS (I believe) or either it's IO.SYS, there should be a line in there that says "Boot Gui=1" ... if you change that to a 0, it will boot to DOS directly. Works just the same as if you had DOS 6.22 installed. Windows 98 SE stores all of the DOS utilities in a seperate folder, I think it's under like Windows\Command. I think the DOS that comes with Windows 98 SE is basically called DOS 7.xx.

Windows 95 and Windows 98 STILL run on top of DOS, unlike Windows NT, 2000, and XP.

Todd82TA
January 5th, 2012, 03:32 AM
Hey Todd...

I saw your post in the other thread. I ended up installing and running Windows 98SE Plus! I like it that way because I still have Windows fincionality, but I can still get to REAL DOS just by opening the commend prompt. It works for me. I have tested a lot of the games and other software on it prior to writing them to floppy, or as in my case committing them to a Zip drive for bulk loads/transfers. BTW, I also added the tool to DOS for long file names too. That eliminated a lot of issues with duplicate write projects. Like I said, this works for me quite well.


Glad to hear it!

I've been pretty happy with it too!

bettablue
January 5th, 2012, 08:53 AM
Yeah... There is 2 small problems that I'll be addressing shortly though. The computer only has a single 4 Gig drive. My software collection needs to be stored on this computer, so it will be getting a much bigger drive. Next; there is almost no room in theis computer to add anything more. Everything is so tightly packaged, that when the 3.5" floppy was removed and replaced with an IDE zip drive, and then adding in a new 5.35" DSDD 360K drive, running the ribbon cables was a nightmare.

However, it is working, so that is definitely a good thing. And it really does amaze me what it is capable of doing.

Any way Todd, thank for the input. I always like suggestions, because you never know if you might have not thought about something, or maybe not though about it correctly.

Have a great 2012.

See ya.


Glad to hear it!

I've been pretty happy with it too!

Todd82TA
January 5th, 2012, 10:05 AM
Yeah... There is 2 small problems that I'll be addressing shortly though. The computer only has a single 4 Gig drive. My software collection needs to be stored on this computer, so it will be getting a much bigger drive. Next; there is almost no room in theis computer to add anything more. Everything is so tightly packaged, that when the 3.5" floppy was removed and replaced with an IDE zip drive, and then adding in a new 5.35" DSDD 360K drive, running the ribbon cables was a nightmare.

However, it is working, so that is definitely a good thing. And it really does amaze me what it is capable of doing.

Any way Todd, thank for the input. I always like suggestions, because you never know if you might have not thought about something, or maybe not though about it correctly.

Have a great 2012.

See ya.


Here's something to think about. They sell combo-drives. You could free up some much needed space in that computer.

In my P2, I've got a 5.25" floppy drive that has built into it a 3.5" floppy drive. Both drives are attached in the same 5.25" form-factor casing.

Here is one example I found on line: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-combo-floppy-drive-3-5-5-25-/130624188447?pt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&hash=item1e69cef01f

7511

Another "combo drive" you can also do is an IDE-CD drive, with a 3.5" floppy built into it... it's one of the more weird combos I've seen, but here's one of them:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TEAC-CF506A-CD-Drive-Floppy-Combo-5-25-Int-HH-bulk-/280775858348?pt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&hash=item415f8b98ac

7512

Hope that helps. Personally, I use the 5.25 + 3.5" floppy drive... works awesome. The one I have (don't know about the one I listed in the search), but mine only needs to be plugged in by a single floppy (block) connector, and it's automatically recognized as an A and B drive. 3.5" floppy is listed as the A drive, and the 5.25" is listed as the B drive, but I can flip a jumper if I need to.

bettablue
January 5th, 2012, 12:32 PM
I've seen these. But for my purposes, I really have no need for a 3.5" floppy, and the primary reason I installed the floppy drive I did was to have true DSDD support for a dual sided 360Kb floppy didks. By installing a larger capacity dual sided drive, you run the risk of not completely filling the data track on rewrites casuing the disk to become unreadable by a real 360 dual sided diskette.


Here's something to think about. They sell combo-drives. You could free up some much needed space in that computer.

In my P2, I've got a 5.25" floppy drive that has built into it a 3.5" floppy drive. Both drives are attached in the same 5.25" form-factor casing.

Here is one example I found on line: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-combo-floppy-drive-3-5-5-25-/130624188447?pt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&hash=item1e69cef01f

7511

Another "combo drive" you can also do is an IDE-CD drive, with a 3.5" floppy built into it... it's one of the more weird combos I've seen, but here's one of them:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TEAC-CF506A-CD-Drive-Floppy-Combo-5-25-Int-HH-bulk-/280775858348?pt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&hash=item415f8b98ac

7512

Hope that helps. Personally, I use the 5.25 + 3.5" floppy drive... works awesome. The one I have (don't know about the one I listed in the search), but mine only needs to be plugged in by a single floppy (block) connector, and it's automatically recognized as an A and B drive. 3.5" floppy is listed as the A drive, and the 5.25" is listed as the B drive, but I can flip a jumper if I need to.

RBARDY
February 27th, 2012, 06:53 AM
Both win 95 and win 98 are dos based just need more space and memory win31 11 win95 60 win98 200 you need win95 d version for usb support

Chuck(G)
February 27th, 2012, 08:52 AM
If you use Win9x DOS mode, pick up and install DOSLFN (http://adoxa.3eeweb.com/doslfn/) and you'll get long filename support in DOS (for those programs that can actually use it). Makes reading directory listings somewhat easier.

Todd82TA
March 14th, 2012, 02:46 PM
To me that hardware scream Windows 98SE (bump the RAM up though).


I've got a dual Pentium 2 / 266 that runs Windows 98 SE, and it runs awesome (doesn't even see or care about the 2nd processor anyway).


In my opinion, put Windows 98 SE, and modify the MSDOS.SYS file in the root of C and change the line that says "BOOTGUI=1" to "BOOTGUI=0"


This will make Windows 98 SE automatically boot in DOS. For all intents and purposes, it is essentially DOS 7.0. As a matter of fact, Windows 98 SE should come with most of the DOS programs in Windows\Command.

I copied them all to C:\DOS and set the path to that anyway. You can even use DOS 5.0 and up files without having to use SETVER.EXE

Just copy them all into the folder.


I basically use the computer as if it was just a DOS machine, and then when I want windows... I just type "Win" and it loads Windows.

I boot with a Config.SYS and Autoexec.Bat. I have HIMEM.SYS loaded, an Oak CD/IDE driver, MOUSE.COM from Microsoft, and a few other things. I copied all the files needed from DOS 6.22 so that I could use MEMMAKER, and I ran it on the machine. I get about ~620k base memory, and 512mb extended memory.


I use that machine to play most of my DOS games, and some late 90s / early ~2000 games that were designed for Windows 95 / 98.


Todd

SpidersWeb
March 14th, 2012, 04:15 PM
Could also set it up to dual boot MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 98 SE.
Boot menu's were quite handy back then.

Caluser2000
March 16th, 2012, 03:45 PM
The thing is you effectively don't need MS Dos 6.22 with Win98SE and there are workarounds to get the likes of win/wfw3.x up and running if you want to use them http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/97945-windows-311-and-ms-dos-71/