HIMEM.SYS is not part of FreeDOS, it's only part of MS-DOS. You can use HIMEMX, HIMEM.EXE or FD-HIMEM, but FD-HIMEM was known to be buggy. Frankly, I'd use a real copy of MS-DOS with Windows 3.1.

If you wanted to try HIMEM.EXE, you can put the following into FDCONFIG.SYS;

DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=HIMEM.EXE

That should enable FreeDOS to run in extended memory mode.

I agree with Dmetsys. Modern DOS clones can be neat, but there is no beating a legacy DOS version. I use PC-DOS 2000 myself, but you could use MS-DOS 6.22, PC-DOS 7.1 for FAT32 support, and if you really want to, Dos 7.1 is available from the China DOS union.

Memory management in DOS is definitely a clustertruck and drivers aren't any prettier, but that's what you get for an OS based on CP/M from the early-mid 70's.

There is also OS/2 which is like DOS and Win16 on cocaine infused steroids. It can be tricky to find a legit copy, but that never stopped anybody before.

You can't use MS-DOS 6.22 for FAT32 8gig partitions.

DOSfan1994 wrote:

You can't use MS-DOS 6.22 for FAT32 8gig partitions.

PC-DOS 7.1 is your friend then!

But FAT32 and DOS is pointless. If you want FAT32 and DOS, then your system is powerful enough to run Windows 95 B or OS/2 Warp.

DOS doesn't NEED more than 2GB of space, and unless your loading 20 DOOM installs (I raise my hand) you don't need much more than 500 MB most of the time.

But that's not what has stopped anybody

PC-DOS 7.1 has the IBM coolness factor (Who doesn't like IBM, it's like your grandfather or uncle, they try their very best, but everybody ends up stealing their work) and

MS-DOS 7.1 from the China DOS union is definitely an option.

You could also install 95B, and strip all the UI elements out until your left with MS-DOS 7.1, but my advice for that is to probably try and use the sys command if that exists in 95B to copy onto a floppy, move utilities like FDISK onboard, and then go back and do the reverse.

FreeDOS is an option, but it has the disappointment of being not retro. Personally I take qualm with this, I prefer period accuracy vs. modern convenience, so I'd rather swap 12 floppies instead of getting a USB floppy emulator and sit there clicking buttons. It might be useful, it might be fast, and it might save your hair when and if normal floppies would go wrong, but we are here for the retro experience.

My opinions aside, DR-DOS is also something you could try, but I am not sure if it has FAT32 support.

DR-DOS does have FAT32 support in it's OpenDOS incarnation. You'll want OpenDOS 7.01 and then patch it to WIP (WIP adds FAT32, so start with a smaller boot/OS partition then add big ones once you're patched).

Ampera wrote:

MS-DOS 7.1 from the China DOS union is definitely an option.

Its origins are a complete mystery. I sure wouldn't consider it an option.

FreeDOS is an option, but it has the disappointment of being not retro. Personally I take qualm with this, I prefer period accuracy vs. modern convenience

The Chinese DOS 7.1 should be even less desirable in that regard.

I agree that DR-DOS is worth considering, though I keep losing track of the various forks and legal problems. And yes, it has drfat32.sys. (In theory, you can use that with other versions of DOS, too.)

I also agree that you shouldn't need more than 2 GB for most DOS purposes and in fact you may encounter compatibility problems if you have that much free space.

Jorpho wrote:

Its origins are a complete mystery. I sure wouldn't consider it an option. […]
Show full quote

Ampera wrote:

MS-DOS 7.1 from the China DOS union is definitely an option.

Its origins are a complete mystery. I sure wouldn't consider it an option.

FreeDOS is an option, but it has the disappointment of being not retro. Personally I take qualm with this, I prefer period accuracy vs. modern convenience

The Chinese DOS 7.1 should be even less desirable in that regard.

I agree that DR-DOS is worth considering, though I keep losing track of the various forks and legal problems. And yes, it has drfat32.sys. (In theory, you can use that with other versions of DOS, too.)

I also agree that you shouldn't need more than 2 GB for most DOS purposes and in fact you may encounter compatibility problems if you have that much free space.

Yea it is a complete mystery. Like a lot of stuff in the retro computing world. Try to find good amounts of info on DataExpert or Data Technologies Corp. The best I got was DTC's old headquarters in California, yet I still use both their parts. The DOS 7.1 option I agree is not as good a PC-DOS 2000, which is what I use, but I would take it over FreeDOS.

I would also take MS-DOS 6.22 over FreeDOS because of the principle of my builds. The newest parts are either old design new make, or because I don't have anything older.

I don't think I have seen a DOS/Windows 3.1 machine that had a hard drive with over 500MB in storage capacity, mostly due to BIOS C/H/S limitations. I'm a purist myself, and would only use MS-DOS if I wanted a proper Windows 3.1 build.

You can run win 3.1 on FreeDOS fine. There are ways to do it with the native JEMM386/HIMEMX, but it's easier to just copy over EMM386/HIMEM.SYS from MS-DOS and get the best of both worlds.

gdjacobs wrote:

DR-DOS does have FAT32 support in it's OpenDOS incarnation. You'll want OpenDOS 7.01 and then patch it to WIP (WIP adds FAT32, so start with a smaller boot/OS partition then add big ones once you're patched).

But what about turning of the 386 enhanced support?

I wouldn't use the included memory management TSRs for that reason.

Dmetsys wrote:

I don't think I have seen a DOS/Windows 3.1 machine that had a hard drive with over 500MB in storage capacity, mostly due to BIOS C/H/S limitations. I'm a purist myself, and would only use MS-DOS if I wanted a proper Windows 3.1 build.

Your porking at one.

Lol, I have a 486 DX4-100 build with 2GB drives fully usable by DOS

gdjacobs wrote:

I wouldn't use the included memory management TSRs for that reason.

What version of DOS should I use if I don't want the included memory management if I want to use Windows 3.1 on FAT 32?

Ampera wrote:

Dmetsys wrote:

I don't think I have seen a DOS/Windows 3.1 machine that had a hard drive with over 500MB in storage capacity, mostly due to BIOS C/H/S limitations. I'm a purist myself, and would only use MS-DOS if I wanted a proper Windows 3.1 build.

Your porking at one.

Lol, I have a 486 DX4-100 build with 2GB drives fully usable by DOS

The DX4-100 was certified to run Windows 95. 😜 I wouldn't classify a DX4-100 to be a DOS/Windows 3.1 era processor, but to each their own I suppose, haha. 🤣

Dmetsys wrote:

Ampera wrote:

Dmetsys wrote:

I don't think I have seen a DOS/Windows 3.1 machine that had a hard drive with over 500MB in storage capacity, mostly due to BIOS C/H/S limitations. I'm a purist myself, and would only use MS-DOS if I wanted a proper Windows 3.1 build.

Your porking at one.

Lol, I have a 486 DX4-100 build with 2GB drives fully usable by DOS

The DX4-100 was certified to run Windows 95. 😜 I wouldn't classify a DX4-100 to be a DOS/Windows 3.1 era processor, but to each their own I suppose, haha. 🤣

You can run Windows 95 on a 386, yet I can't even max out Duke Nukem on a DX4-100.

You can BARELY run Windows 95 on a 386DX, even though it's listed as the minimum requirement for doing so.

Dmetsys wrote:

You can BARELY run Windows 95 on a 386DX, even though it's listed as the minimum requirement for doing so.

The DX4-100 is a perfectly fine DOS chip. Even some of the P5 chips were still good for DOS. You CAN run Windows 95 on a DX4-100, and I do run it, but I also run PC-DOS 2000.

DOSfan1994 wrote:

What version of DOS should I use if I don't want the included memory management if I want to use Windows 3.1 on FAT 32?

This sentence does not make grammatical sense.

If this is about Re: A problem when trying to install a Living books game on Windows 3.1 on PCem. again, then your problem arose because you were trying to run Windows with an unholy amount of RAM and not because it was in 386 enhanced mode. If you want to be certain about avoiding strange compatibility issues, then there is no substitute for MS-DOS 6.22.

And you shouldn't use Windows 3.1 on a FAT32 drive. Period.

Jorpho wrote:

This sentence does not make grammatical sense. […]
Show full quote

DOSfan1994 wrote:

What version of DOS should I use if I don't want the included memory management if I want to use Windows 3.1 on FAT 32?

This sentence does not make grammatical sense.

If this is about Re: A problem when trying to install a Living books game on Windows 3.1 on PCem. again, then your problem arose because you were trying to run Windows with an unholy amount of RAM and not because it was in 386 enhanced mode. If you want to be certain about avoiding strange compatibility issues, then there is no substitute for MS-DOS 6.22.

And you shouldn't use Windows 3.1 on a FAT32 drive. Period.

There ARE substitutes with perfect compatibility. PC-DOS is your best alternative as it has more and better features than MS-DOS, and it has the cool IBM aspect to it (Who doesn't love IBM). It's based on the same codebase, and until version 6, was developed together with MS-DOS.

But Windows 3.1 cannot access more than 2GB anyways, you will only encounter issues with drives over 2GB, and there is no real reason to use drives over 2GB. As I said, Windows 95b/c is when you want larger drives. You get DOS support, and a better version of Windows.

I sympathize, until a while, my smallest drive was 20GB IDE, but you still need to keep it to 2GB.