You can use anything else you want to create the partitions over and above those <=2GB partitions you create for MS-DOS 6.22 - but you can't use them in DOS.

You can have a maximum of 4 primary partitions with the standard DOS partition table. To be visible in MS-DOS <= 6.22 they all need to be 2GB or less.

Or, you can create 1 to 3 primary partitions of 2GB, then an extended partition for the rest of the disk space and create as many logical partitions in that space as you want (bearing in mind the 26 driver letter DOS limitation!). Obviously keeping each one under 2GB to be useable in DOS 6.22. Any over 2GB should also be visible in Win 7 (and above).

You can of course use DOS 7.1 aka the version of DOS that comes with Win 98SE, then you can access much larger FAT32 partitions too.

freedos, DOS 7.1, and DOS mode in windows 9x all have fat 32 support. You can make the partitions as big as 2TB - at least theoretically.

DOS is fat 16. The 16bit address space is 2gb. One way to get around that is to make a bunch of partitions each 2gb in size. I think DOS 6.22 can address as many as four of them, or rather as much as 8 total GBs no matter how you divide them up.

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:53:

freedos, DOS 7.1, and DOS mode in windows 9x all have fat 32 support. You can make the partitions as big as 2TB - at least theoretically.

DOS is fat 16. The 16bit address space is 2gb. One way to get around that is to make a bunch of partitions each 2gb in size. I think DOS 6.22 can address as many as four of them, or rather as much as 8 total GBs no matter how you divide them up.

FAT32 on MSDOS 7.0 (Win95A) onlu supports 2 GB partitions.
FAT32 on MSDOS 7.1 (Win95B up tp 98SE) supports 124.55 GB partitions.

You are right that MSDOS 6.22 can only recognise hard drives up to 8GB (or 7.84 if you see a GB as 2^30 Bytes), but it can have more than 4 partitions if you use extended partitions, using smaller partitions to have less wasted space by using smaller clusters.

If the OP has a 386 or better then by far the best option is to use DOS 7.1 and use FAT32 partitions unless there is a historical reason to use something earlier.

PC-DOS 7.1 also supports FAT32 partitions but it's not nearly as straight forward as a Win 98SE boot floppy to get up and running. No 386 requirement though, which is a bonus compared to MS-DOS 7.1.

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 21:27:

FAT32 on MSDOS 7.0 (Win95A) onlu supports 2 GB partitions. FAT32 on MSDOS 7.1 (Win95B up tp 98SE) supports 124.55 GB partitions. […]
Show full quote

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:53:

freedos, DOS 7.1, and DOS mode in windows 9x all have fat 32 support. You can make the partitions as big as 2TB - at least theoretically.

DOS is fat 16. The 16bit address space is 2gb. One way to get around that is to make a bunch of partitions each 2gb in size. I think DOS 6.22 can address as many as four of them, or rather as much as 8 total GBs no matter how you divide them up.

FAT32 on MSDOS 7.0 (Win95A) onlu supports 2 GB partitions.
FAT32 on MSDOS 7.1 (Win95B up tp 98SE) supports 124.55 GB partitions.

You are right that MSDOS 6.22 can only recognise hard drives up to 8GB (or 7.84 if you see a GB as 2^30 Bytes), but it can have more than 4 partitions if you use extended partitions, using smaller partitions to have less wasted space by using smaller clusters.

Well if we want to get really pedantic about it, DOS 6.22 can address up to 8gbs of total space, but the hard drive can be bigger.

EDIT:
I think you can install windows 98 on a hard drive larger than 128gbs but you have to partition it outside of the boot CD. Although I haven't tried it. Not that you would want to though, from what I have read it doesn't understand the geometry of the disc and will corrupt your data eventually.

Dave Bursik wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:09:

I have some questions about disk formatting for MSDOS. MSDOS generally supports disks up to 2GB in FAT16.

you really dont want 2gb fat16 your wasting so much cluster space from block size at that point its a huge waste.

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-10, 22:35:

Well if we want to get really pedantic about it, DOS 6.22 can address up to 8gbs of total space, but the hard drive can be bigge […]
Show full quote

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 21:27:

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:53:

freedos, DOS 7.1, and DOS mode in windows 9x all have fat 32 support. You can make the partitions as big as 2TB - at least theoretically.

FAT32 on MSDOS 7.0 (Win95A) onlu supports 2 GB partitions.
FAT32 on MSDOS 7.1 (Win95B up tp 98SE) supports 124.55 GB partitions.

Well if we want to get really pedantic about it, DOS 6.22 can address up to 8gbs of total space, but the hard drive can be bigger.

EDIT:
I think you can install windows 98 on a hard drive larger than 128gbs but you have to partition it outside of the boot CD. Although I haven't tried it. Not that you would want to though, from what I have read it doesn't understand the geometry of the disc and will corrupt your data eventually.

Is it really pedantic to correct a mistake? Only trying to be helpful, not to be insulted.

I don't know the maximum drive size for Windows 98, only the maximum partition size, as I could never afford a really large drive in the 9x days. I imagine it could support multiple maximum sized partitions though. Might have to test that with a 1TB drive 😀

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 23:37:

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-10, 22:35:

Well if we want to get really pedantic about it, DOS 6.22 can address up to 8gbs of total space, but the hard drive can be bigge […]
Show full quote

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 21:27:

FAT32 on MSDOS 7.0 (Win95A) onlu supports 2 GB partitions.
FAT32 on MSDOS 7.1 (Win95B up tp 98SE) supports 124.55 GB partitions.

Well if we want to get really pedantic about it, DOS 6.22 can address up to 8gbs of total space, but the hard drive can be bigger.

EDIT:
I think you can install windows 98 on a hard drive larger than 128gbs but you have to partition it outside of the boot CD. Although I haven't tried it. Not that you would want to though, from what I have read it doesn't understand the geometry of the disc and will corrupt your data eventually.

Is it really pedantic to correct a mistake? Only trying to be helpful, not to be insulted.

I don't know the maximum drive size for Windows 98, only the maximum partition size, as I could never afford a really large drive in the 9x days. I imagine it could support multiple maximum sized partitions though. Might have to test that with a 1TB drive 😀

For Windows 98 SE , to handle drives larger than 137GB (for this to work, your IDE or disk controller BIOS must be 48-bit LBA capable) : BHDD31.ZIP http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD31.ZIP from http://www.mdgx.com/upd98me.php (the included patched ESDI_506.PDR is only necessary if the IDE controller driver that you are uses this file . SIL3114 and recent Promise controllers, BIOS and drivers do not use ESDI_506.PDR and support >137GB drives in Windows 98 SE) . Alternatively, there are rloew's utilities to achieve the same goal .

As for partition size, if you keep it under 127GB (good idea for FAT32 anyway, for the sake of cluster size), Windows98 SE stays happy . See Re: Planning to install SSD in my Windows 98 machine. Help, advice, suggestions, etc.? and https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-ver … rectedfrom=MSDN

I currently use a 500GB SSD with <127GB partitions in a Windows 98 SE system and a 1TB HDD with <127GB partitions in another Windows 98 SE system and have no issues . Both systems have 48-bit LBA capable controllers and Windows drivers. One has the patched ESDI_506.PDR from http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD31.ZIP and the other uses a SIL3114 controller and drivers and the updated utilities from http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD31.ZIP

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 23:37:

Is it really pedantic to correct a mistake? Only trying to be helpful, not to be insulted.

I wasn't trying to insult you. There is a lot of "um actually" stuff going on around here, and I don't mind. I was having a little fun with is all.

If I was really annoyed by it I just wouldn't say anything (hopefully).

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-11, 01:09:

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 23:37:

Is it really pedantic to correct a mistake? Only trying to be helpful, not to be insulted.

I wasn't trying to insult you. There is a lot of "um actually" stuff going on around here, and I don't mind. I was having a little fun with is all.

If I was really annoyed by it I just wouldn't say anything (hopefully).

That's OK then. I'm probably just feeling sensitive tonight 😀

Hi, thanks a lot for your replies, it is usefull for me.
Dave

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:53:

freedos, DOS 7.1, and DOS mode in windows 9x all have fat 32 support. You can make the partitions as big as 2TB - at least theoretically.

DOS is fat 16. The 16bit address space is 2gb. One way to get around that is to make a bunch of partitions each 2gb in size. I think DOS 6.22 can address as many as four of them, or rather as much as 8 total GBs no matter how you divide them up.

😉

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 21:27:

FAT32 on MSDOS 7.0 (Win95A) onlu supports 2 GB partitions.
FAT32 on MSDOS 7.1 (Win95B up tp 98SE) supports 124.55 GB partitions.

Win95A/DOS 7.0 does not support FAT32.
The 2GB limit is for FAT16.

Azarien wrote on 2021-02-11, 16:03:

debs3759 wrote on 2021-02-10, 21:27:

FAT32 on MSDOS 7.0 (Win95A) onlu supports 2 GB partitions.
FAT32 on MSDOS 7.1 (Win95B up tp 98SE) supports 124.55 GB partitions.

Win95A/DOS 7.0 does not support FAT32.
The 2GB limit is for FAT16.

Oops, my bad. Thanks 😀

There is a lot informations of about Dos 7.0 or 7.1... I gues you mean the DOS installed together with Win95 or 98.
But is anybody experienced with the clear DOS 7.1 ? I have some installation CD with DOS 7.1. You can install with it a lot of addons too. Is this version of MSDOS 100% compatibile with 6.22?

Jo22 wrote on 2021-02-11, 12:39:

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:53:

freedos, DOS 7.1, and DOS mode in windows 9x all have fat 32 support. You can make the partitions as big as 2TB - at least theoretically.

DOS is fat 16. The 16bit address space is 2gb. One way to get around that is to make a bunch of partitions each 2gb in size. I think DOS 6.22 can address as many as four of them, or rather as much as 8 total GBs no matter how you divide them up.

😉

🙂 May I have the patch for MS-DOS 5.0?

Dave Bursik wrote on 2021-02-11, 17:20:

There is a lot informations of about Dos 7.0 or 7.1... I gues you mean the DOS installed together with Win95 or 98.

DOS 7.0 is the version of DOS included with first Windows 95 release, also known as Windows 95A.
DOS 7.1 are several versions of DOS released with late Windows 95 (aka 95B, aka 95 OSR2), Windows 98 and Windows 98SE.

DOS 7.0 gives you LFN support as long as Windows 95 is running or a TSR such as doslfn is loaded.
I don't know of any other advantage of using 7.0 over 6.22.

DOS 7.1 gives you FAT32 support, and just for that reason is the best MS-DOS version "ever", afaik.

But is anybody experienced with the clear DOS 7.1 ? I have some installation CD with DOS 7.1. You can install with it a lot of addons too.

There was no such thing, officially. Any CD you might find is most probably some unofficial tool compilation.
Technically, you can install Windows-less DOS 7.1 by installing Windows 98SE, disabling Windows in msdos.sys, moving all tools from C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND to C:\DOS and then deltree'ing all of WINDOWS, Program Files and what not. There are also some additional DOS tools on Windows 9x install CD that are not installed by default.

You'll still get that "Starting Windows 98" instead of "Starting MS-DOS" on boot, but for all intents and purposes you have a "clear" DOS 7.1 now.

Is this version of MSDOS 100% compatibile with 6.22?

Pretty much everything works, unless something aggressively checks for DOS version and chocks on 7.x.
Older disk tools will be prevented from running as they would damage the LFN records and FAT32 partitions.

He's talking about the CDU distro of DOS 7.1 which works great

maxtherabbit wrote on 2021-02-11, 20:24:

He's talking about the CDU distro of DOS 7.1 which works great

Sorry, what you mean "CDU distro" ?