PDA

View Full Version : best boot order setup



Casey
March 9th, 2017, 06:36 PM
Assuming one is daft enough to set up a multi-boot with options of DOS, Win9x, and later (XP and/or 7) what would be the best practice? I have boot cds for freedos, ms-dos 6.22, Win95, and Win98se. I've downloaded images for dos 5.0 1.2m floppies, but am not sure of the value compared to the files integrated into 95 or 98se.

Assuming I went with a 98se setup, it is my understanding I can muck about with msdos.sys and not boot directly to windows. My question is: do I still need separate config.sys & autoexec.bat files for a "pure" ms-dos boot versus a Win98se boot? It is my understanding that skipping the GUI boot does not result in a proper dos boot in terms of access to the cd-rom and other modern devices..

jmetal88
March 10th, 2017, 03:58 AM
Assuming one is daft enough to set up a multi-boot with options of DOS, Win9x, and later (XP and/or 7) what would be the best practice? I have boot cds for freedos, ms-dos 6.22, Win95, and Win98se. I've downloaded images for dos 5.0 1.2m floppies, but am not sure of the value compared to the files integrated into 95 or 98se.

Assuming I went with a 98se setup, it is my understanding I can muck about with msdos.sys and not boot directly to windows. My question is: do I still need separate config.sys & autoexec.bat files for a "pure" ms-dos boot versus a Win98se boot? It is my understanding that skipping the GUI boot does not result in a proper dos boot in terms of access to the cd-rom and other modern devices..

You'd be correct in your assumption there -- It does essentially make Windows 98 behave just like DOS, but it doesn't do anything as far as setting up your hardware (same as a fresh DOS install, really) so you'd have to set up whatever drivers you need in CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT. Now, depending on the drivers, that *can* cause problems when you start Windows (by typing 'win') by starting certain drivers in compatibility mode, so it might be worth checking out if Windows 98 can use a CONFIG.SYS menu (I know that works on MS-DOS 6.22, but I haven't tried on anything newer) to skip loading your drivers when you want to start up the GUI.

I actually have a multi-boot Windows ME/Windows XP setup (because for whatever reason I found Windows ME runs better on this particular hardware than Windows 98 SE even though Windows 98 drivers are readily available for all the devices on the system) and it works pretty well. I just divided the hard drive into two partitions, installed ME onto the first partition, and installed XP onto the second partition afterward. Windows XP set up a boot menu for me when it installed that allowed me to select one or the other.

glitch
March 10th, 2017, 06:24 AM
I've done multiboot setups using the GRUB bootloader and DOS 6.22, Win98, Win2k, and Linux. I think I just partitioned/installed all of the MS products first, then Linux. GRUB is easy to set up for this situation, you just chainload onto whatever partition you need to.

Trixter
March 10th, 2017, 07:02 AM
Assuming one is daft enough to set up a multi-boot with options of DOS, Win9x, and later (XP and/or 7) what would be the best practice? I have boot cds for freedos, ms-dos 6.22, Win95, and Win98se. I've downloaded images for dos 5.0 1.2m floppies, but am not sure of the value compared to the files integrated into 95 or 98se.

Assuming I went with a 98se setup, it is my understanding I can muck about with msdos.sys and not boot directly to windows. My question is: do I still need separate config.sys & autoexec.bat files for a "pure" ms-dos boot versus a Win98se boot? It is my understanding that skipping the GUI boot does not result in a proper dos boot in terms of access to the cd-rom and other modern devices..

System Commander was created specifically for doing this. It's not only a boot manager, but can also cleverly host multiple FAT16 operating systems in the same filesystem (it swaps boot files in/out as necessary). For laughs, I once had MS-DOS 6.22, PC DOS 7, DR-DOS 6, and Windows 95 all installed in the same 2G FAT16 partition with System Commander.

Stone
March 10th, 2017, 08:45 AM
I've tried to use System Commander 2.26 but I've never been able to get it to do anything.

I must be doing something wrong but I have no idea what. :-)

SomeGuy
March 10th, 2017, 09:13 AM
Assuming one is daft enough to set up a multi-boot with options of DOS, Win9x, and later (XP and/or 7) what would be the best practice? I have boot cds for freedos, ms-dos 6.22, Win95, and Win98se. I've downloaded images for dos 5.0 1.2m floppies, but am not sure of the value compared to the files integrated into 95 or 98se.
What is it you are trying to accomplish?

For running DOS programs, Windows 98SE's "DOS 7.1" is usually good enough. When running the real-mode DOS outside of Windows, it can run almost everything 6.22 can except some older disk utilities. Win9x DOS has the ability to use a boot menu that lets you select different driver sets. Note that you CAN load a DOS CD driver and still run Windows 98 on top of that, although most recommend against it.

You might actually find that you don't need a DOS CD driver if you do your file manipulation in Windows and then just exit to DOS to run stuff.

BTW, if so desired Windows XP has the option that it can be installed on a FAT32 partition. Just something to keep in mind, although a separate NTFS partition is often more desirable.

A simple Windows 98SE and XP combination would get along well, and let you multi-boot without any fancy stuff.

Agent Orange
March 10th, 2017, 09:59 AM
I've tried to use System Commander 2.26 but I've never been able to get it to do anything.

I must be doing something wrong but I have no idea what. :-)

Your version is old. I have 3.07, 4.031, 4.01, and 4.02. All have valid S/N's and work up to and including XP. Straight forward install, no learning curve so to speak. If you remove System Commander at anytime you'll need to do FDISK /MBR to return to a normal DOS boot.

Stone
March 10th, 2017, 10:08 AM
I know it's old but so is DOS and the system and OSes I want to use it with. :-)

Agent Orange
March 10th, 2017, 10:33 AM
I know it's old but so is DOS and the system and OSes I want to use it with. :-)

FWIW, I've run DOS, W95, W98 & XP with no problems on a System Commander setup. PM me.

Trixter
March 10th, 2017, 10:38 AM
I've tried to use System Commander 2.26 but I've never been able to get it to do anything.
I must be doing something wrong but I have no idea what. :-)

Way, way too early a version. 3.x and higher are better for the "multi-fat" thing, and 7 and later can handle most other operating systems. Keep in mind the product was discontinued in the mid 2000s, so it is probably a good idea to not manage anything later than 2008 with it. IIRC, 3.x works on a 286 and higher, while later versions require a 386 for some reason.

Stone
March 10th, 2017, 10:46 AM
I'm only looking to run multiple DOS versions with it.

I'm using it on my tweener, a 233 Pentium.

AlexC
March 10th, 2017, 02:19 PM
Another vote for System Commander here. I loved it back in the day (mainly version 3.x I think). 2.x will run on an XT, or at least on an NEC V20 (see screenshot here (http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?55828-Orchid-RamQuest-XT-AT-8MB-RAM-board-with-4MB-installed-EMS-4-0-and-UMBs-on-XT)). It's very clever: it stores the boot files internally so when you 'sys' with a new OS it pops up on next boot and says "Have you just installed a new OS...?" then stores those files too.

Adding Windows 9x is a little more involved since Windows overwrites the boot sector, but it only takes a minute or so to retrieve System Commander's own boot code. The docs explain most of it, but a manual would probably be useful if you didn't use it in the 1990s.

Casey
March 16th, 2017, 11:23 PM
+like. :)

Casey
March 16th, 2017, 11:32 PM
What is it you are trying to accomplish?

For running DOS programs, Windows 98SE's "DOS 7.1" is usually good enough. When running the real-mode DOS outside of Windows, it can run almost everything 6.22 can except some older disk utilities. Win9x DOS has the ability to use a boot menu that lets you select different driver sets. Note that you CAN load a DOS CD driver and still run Windows 98 on top of that, although most recommend against it.


You might actually find that you don't need a DOS CD driver if you do your file manipulation in Windows and then just exit to DOS to run stuff.

BTW, if so desired Windows XP has the option that it can be installed on a FAT32 partition. Just something to keep in mind, although a separate NTFS partition is often more desirable.

A simple Windows 98SE and XP combination would get along well, and let you multi-boot without any fancy stuff.

That's the question which occured to me after posting inquiry. My primary motivation is finding the simplest way to boot WFWG 3.11 so I can play Atari arcade for Windows (sorry, I lurve Asteroids). I know any windows 3.x should work, but what the heck.

The other motivation is the ability to create boot & system floppies for various flavors of DOS, but it occurred to me that I might manage that under DosBox. Boot from the appropriate image, mount the local floppies then format. That would prove problematic under my main system (which has no floppies) but I have 2 systems ready to go; one with a 1.44 & a 1.2 floppy, and the other with a 1.2 & a 360k floppy. I'm looking at adding a USB 1.44 floppy to the latter system if I can still mount the drive in DosBox. Don't see why not. If I need to format "true" 720k floppies I can always boot up my IBM Convertible.

...On the other hand, System Commander looks very helpful... :)

Casey
March 16th, 2017, 11:36 PM
If I understand what you're telling me, I would need two separate boot systems; one for "pure" DOS with the required drivers and one for Win898 (which includes most of the drivers within the kernel). I would need to keep them separate given that Win98 directly controls a bunch of hardware driven by DOS software, yes?

nc_mike
March 17th, 2017, 04:54 AM
Hi Casey, my name is 'Daft' - glad to meet you! :-)

Few are aware of the huge challenges trying to run multiple generations of DOS and Windows on the same hardware - and get everything to work, it isn't simply a matter of muti-boot. Others 'experts' have tried, and failed miserably

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/classics-rock/windows-31-experiment-hits-a-wall.

It took a great deal of time, research, and effort, but I did it to prove that it can be done, and I painfully documented all that is required, how to do it, and sources for getting what's needed.

https://pcpartpicker.com/b/yJjcCJ

Enjoy!
Mike