• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

DOS / Win 3.11 Networking Question

S

Smack2k

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
1,348
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
If Windows 3.11 is installed along with a DOS install, is there any good reason to install DOS Networking if you have networking setup in Windows 3.11?

To move things around my retro network, I'd obviously use Windows and then switch back to DOS when needed, but I was curious if there were any reasons where installing DOS networking would be necessary as well?
 
Probably depends on what protocols you want to use. Windows has the main ones of the time covered (IPX, NetBUEI, TCP/IP), so I doubt you'd need anything else, unless you want to network DOOM or some other DOS game.
 
IIRC if you install windows networking then you only have networking devices setup in windows and a dos box. However, if you install networking under dos then run windows you have access to the network everywhere. I generally install client under dos and map shares in autoexec. Then in windows I have access to the networked drives as well.
 
WFW 3.11 adds a "net start" command to your autoexec.bat which activates the network services in DOS before loading windows IIRC

the vast majority of LAN-aware DOS games use IPX/SPX
 
maxtherabbit said:
WFW 3.11 adds a "net start" command to your autoexec.bat which activates the network services in DOS before loading windows IIRC
Click to expand...

I think that starts the services needed by both DOS and windows but I don't believe mapping and shares done under windows persist in pure dos. I could be wrong though it has been a while since I have setup WfW.

As far as games are concerned that is true for the majority of games before the internet "took off". You may need to use utils like Kali to get IPX to TCP redirection. After the internet most games either supported both or just TCP.
 
Doing a 'net logon' and mapping drives takes a lot of conventional DOS memory. Unless you have to do it, best to load the network under Windows.
 
resman said:
Doing a 'net logon' and mapping drives takes a lot of conventional DOS memory. Unless you have to do it, best to load the network under Windows.
Click to expand...

It take a bit more but not necessarily impossible amounts and personally I love having mapped drives under DOS. It gives me easy access to utilities, programs, etc. Specially since many times I won't even bother installing Windows on a vintage system....
 
My personal preference is INTERSVR/LNK for DOS networking over serial (nullmodem) or parallel (LapLink). Or FastLynx over the same topologies or ethernet with LSL / NE2000 / IPX (NetWare / Lite stack in DOS). Most late DOS games support nullmodem and IPX. Later on TCP/IP became the standard.
 
Shadow Lord said:
It take a bit more but not necessarily impossible amounts and personally I love having mapped drives under DOS. It gives me easy access to utilities, programs, etc. Specially since many times I won't even bother installing Windows on a vintage system....
Click to expand...

I have found programs that won't load on my 286 with the MS network client loaded under DOS. I agree that it is *very* useful to have drives mapped under DOS (especially when installing programs over the net). I created a batch file to do all the dirty work instead of loading it in AUTOEXEC.BAT for the best of both worlds. But, since this was for WfW 3.11, it's pretty much a given that this is a 386+ and much can be done in a DOS window.
 
PeterNC said:
My personal preference is INTERSVR/LNK for DOS networking over serial (nullmodem) or parallel (LapLink). Or FastLynx over the same topologies or ethernet with LSL / NE2000 / IPX (NetWare / Lite stack in DOS). Most late DOS games support nullmodem and IPX. Later on TCP/IP became the standard.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind running a Linux server EtherDFS is a lightweight ethernet-based option for network drives under DOS on machines too weak to run Windows 3.1's networking stack. For that matter the "NC" program from the mTCP suite can be used as a quick-and-dirty sneakernet replacement that only requires the packet driver be loaded. I use that all the time to shoot files from my MacBook to the Tandy 1000.
 
I'd probably prefer setting up networking in DOS, due to the convenience of having it there all the time. However some of the files, particularly TCP/IP, took a lot of memory. The other huge problem was that if your network connection was lost (such as unplugging the ethernet cable), you'd have to reboot the computer to get it to start up again. Also, the only speeds available at the time were 10Mb and 100Mb - none of this gigabit business.

Back in my IT days I used to set up networks in DOS all the time for our users. But, with the passage of time, I've forgotten it all, the tricks of the trade. Plus, I never thought to save the network driver files and the config settings and so on. I've got a couple of 386-based computers which I'd like to put on my network, but I can't remember what to do any more. What's even worse is that most network cards didn't even have a brand or model number on them. The chance of finding the right driver is rather remote.
 
Robbbert said:
Back in my IT days I used to set up networks in DOS all the time for our users. But, with the passage of time, I've forgotten it all, the tricks of the trade. Plus, I never thought to save the network driver files and the config settings and so on. I've got a couple of 386-based computers which I'd like to put on my network, but I can't remember what to do any more. What's even worse is that most network cards didn't even have a brand or model number on them. The chance of finding the right driver is rather remote.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of 16-bit ISA cards that are configurable from a floppy disk. So you don't really need to remember or have anything else. :)
 
Robbbert said:
I'd probably prefer setting up networking in DOS, due to the convenience of having it there all the time. However some of the files, particularly TCP/IP, took a lot of memory.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why everyone thinks this is true. Yes, it takes a bit of memory but really not that much. Not enough to give up the convenience anyhow. Below is a

MEM /C output from one of my currently running systems (a G2K 386SX-16 w/ 8 MB of RAM with MS-DOS 6.22).

Code: 
Modules using memory below 1 MB:

  Name           Total       =   Conventional   +   Upper Memory
  --------  ----------------   ----------------   ----------------
  SYSTEM       4,189    (4K)   1,032,44 (1,008K   4,293,93 (4,193,
  QEMM386        784    (1K)        784    (1K)          0    (0K)
  CSP          5,376    (5K)      5,376    (5K)          0    (0K)
  4DOS         4,768    (5K)        272    (0K)      4,496    (4K)
  2M           5,280    (5K)      5,280    (5K)          0    (0K)
  UMB            960    (1K)        272    (0K)        688    (1K)
  TCPTSR      43,552   (43K)        272    (0K)     43,280   (42K)
  TINYRFC      2,672    (3K)        272    (0K)      2,400    (2K)
  NMTSR        6,048    (6K)      6,048    (6K)          0    (0K)
  EMSBFR       1,184    (1K)      1,184    (1K)          0    (0K)
  BASIC       13,760   (13K)     13,760   (13K)          0    (0K)
  CLOCK        2,272    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,272    (2K)
  FILES        2,096    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,096    (2K)
  FCBS            96    (0K)          0    (0K)         96    (0K)
  WKBUFFER       528    (1K)          0    (0K)        528    (1K)
  LASTDRIV     2,304    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,304    (2K)
  INSTALL        160    (0K)          0    (0K)        160    (0K)
  UNIVESA      9,072    (9K)          0    (0K)      9,072    (9K)
  2MDOS        2,624    (3K)          0    (0K)      2,624    (3K)
  NCACHE2     16,400   (16K)          0    (0K)     16,400   (16K)
  NCACHE2     12,736   (12K)          0    (0K)     12,736   (12K)
  4DOS24H2     2,464    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,464    (2K)
  DMGPARK        768    (1K)          0    (0K)        768    (1K)
  CTMOUSE      3,104    (3K)          0    (0K)      3,104    (3K)
  SMARTCAN    10,144   (10K)          0    (0K)     10,144   (10K)
  NET            400    (0K)          0    (0K)        400    (0K)
  NET         11,264   (11K)          0    (0K)     11,264   (11K)
  NET          1,328    (1K)          0    (0K)      1,328    (1K)
  NET          2,160    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,160    (2K)
  NCDRVTSR     1,072    (1K)          0    (0K)      1,072    (1K)
  DOS-UP         224    (0K)          0    (0K)        224    (0K)
  DOSDATA      5,296    (5K)          0    (0K)      5,296    (5K)
  NANSI        3,536    (3K)          0    (0K)      3,536    (3K)
  IFSHLP       4,016    (4K)          0    (0K)      4,016    (4K)
  XMSDSK         688    (1K)          0    (0K)        688    (1K)
  Free       674,672  (659K)    617,392  (603K)     57,280   (56K)

Memory Summary:

  Type of Memory       Total   =    Used    +    Free
  ----------------  ----------   ----------   ----------
  Conventional         655,360       37,968      617,392
  Upper             4,294,141,   4,294,084,       57,280
  Reserved             262,144      262,144            0
  Extended (XMS)     8,296,464    5,888,016    2,408,448
  ----------------  ----------   ----------   ----------
  Total memory       8,388,608    5,305,488    3,083,120

  Total under 1 MB  4,294,797,   4,294,122,      674,672

  Total Expanded (EMS)                 7,634,944 (7,456K)
  Free Expanded (EMS)                  2,408,448 (2,352K)
  Largest executable program size        616,832   (602K)
  Largest free upper memory block         51,952    (51K)
  MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

With networking, sound card, ram disk, cache, and other superfluous utilities loaded I have 603K free. I remember at best being able to have 610KB or maybe 625KB (I forget if it was 625000 bytes free or 625K free) back in the day with no networking, and no superfluous utilities (sound card, ram disk, etc.) loaded. I am happy to give up 8 to 13KB of free conventional memory for the convenience and power of LAN and all other my utilities. I also can't recall a program that would run in 625K free but not in 603KB. Just my two cents....
 
Shadow Lord said:
I am not sure why everyone thinks this is true. Yes, it takes a bit of memory but really not that much. Not enough to give up the convenience anyhow. Below is a

MEM /C output from one of my currently running systems (a G2K 386SX-16 w/ 8 MB of RAM with MS-DOS 6.22).

Code: 
Modules using memory below 1 MB:

  Name           Total       =   Conventional   +   Upper Memory
  --------  ----------------   ----------------   ----------------
  SYSTEM       4,189    (4K)   1,032,44 (1,008K   4,293,93 (4,193,
  QEMM386        784    (1K)        784    (1K)          0    (0K)
  CSP          5,376    (5K)      5,376    (5K)          0    (0K)
  4DOS         4,768    (5K)        272    (0K)      4,496    (4K)
  2M           5,280    (5K)      5,280    (5K)          0    (0K)
  UMB            960    (1K)        272    (0K)        688    (1K)
  TCPTSR      43,552   (43K)        272    (0K)     43,280   (42K)
  TINYRFC      2,672    (3K)        272    (0K)      2,400    (2K)
  NMTSR        6,048    (6K)      6,048    (6K)          0    (0K)
  EMSBFR       1,184    (1K)      1,184    (1K)          0    (0K)
  BASIC       13,760   (13K)     13,760   (13K)          0    (0K)
  CLOCK        2,272    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,272    (2K)
  FILES        2,096    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,096    (2K)
  FCBS            96    (0K)          0    (0K)         96    (0K)
  WKBUFFER       528    (1K)          0    (0K)        528    (1K)
  LASTDRIV     2,304    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,304    (2K)
  INSTALL        160    (0K)          0    (0K)        160    (0K)
  UNIVESA      9,072    (9K)          0    (0K)      9,072    (9K)
  2MDOS        2,624    (3K)          0    (0K)      2,624    (3K)
  NCACHE2     16,400   (16K)          0    (0K)     16,400   (16K)
  NCACHE2     12,736   (12K)          0    (0K)     12,736   (12K)
  4DOS24H2     2,464    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,464    (2K)
  DMGPARK        768    (1K)          0    (0K)        768    (1K)
  CTMOUSE      3,104    (3K)          0    (0K)      3,104    (3K)
  SMARTCAN    10,144   (10K)          0    (0K)     10,144   (10K)
  NET            400    (0K)          0    (0K)        400    (0K)
  NET         11,264   (11K)          0    (0K)     11,264   (11K)
  NET          1,328    (1K)          0    (0K)      1,328    (1K)
  NET          2,160    (2K)          0    (0K)      2,160    (2K)
  NCDRVTSR     1,072    (1K)          0    (0K)      1,072    (1K)
  DOS-UP         224    (0K)          0    (0K)        224    (0K)
  DOSDATA      5,296    (5K)          0    (0K)      5,296    (5K)
  NANSI        3,536    (3K)          0    (0K)      3,536    (3K)
  IFSHLP       4,016    (4K)          0    (0K)      4,016    (4K)
  XMSDSK         688    (1K)          0    (0K)        688    (1K)
  Free       674,672  (659K)    617,392  (603K)     57,280   (56K)

Memory Summary:

  Type of Memory       Total   =    Used    +    Free
  ----------------  ----------   ----------   ----------
  Conventional         655,360       37,968      617,392
  Upper             4,294,141,   4,294,084,       57,280
  Reserved             262,144      262,144            0
  Extended (XMS)     8,296,464    5,888,016    2,408,448
  ----------------  ----------   ----------   ----------
  Total memory       8,388,608    5,305,488    3,083,120

  Total under 1 MB  4,294,797,   4,294,122,      674,672

  Total Expanded (EMS)                 7,634,944 (7,456K)
  Free Expanded (EMS)                  2,408,448 (2,352K)
  Largest executable program size        616,832   (602K)
  Largest free upper memory block         51,952    (51K)
  MS-DOS is resident in the high memory area.

With networking, sound card, ram disk, cache, and other superfluous utilities loaded I have 603K free. I remember at best being able to have 610KB or maybe 625KB (I forget if it was 625000 bytes free or 625K free) back in the day with no networking, and no superfluous utilities (sound card, ram disk, etc.) loaded. I am happy to give up 8 to 13KB of free conventional memory for the convenience and power of LAN and all other my utilities. I also can't recall a program that would run in 625K free but not in 603KB. Just my two cents....
Click to expand...

That's some pretty solid use of the UMBs. Wish my 286 had more to work with. I may have to revisit my 386's CONFIG.SYS. Another shelter-in-place project...
 
maxtherabbit said:
a lot of retro systems have no UMBs at all, which really changes that landscape
Click to expand...

I haven't played too much with pre-386 and LAN systems. For those I usually just boot off of the FDD as they tend to have small HDD and aside from RAM I try to minimize unnecessary SW on a 10MB HDD. I guess I could try QRAM on the 5170 w/ a 3C509....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top