Does PC-DOS have FAT32?

DOSfan1994 wrote:

Does PC-DOS have FAT32?

Come on dude, that was literally answered in an earlier post in this thread. Don't ask questions if you're not gonna bother to read the answers.

Dmetsys wrote:

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 […]
Show full quote

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.

Well I did found the FDCONFIG.sys file

But where in the file do type these ?

DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICE=HIMEM.EXE

It's already using HIMEMX which for 99% of your requirements is better than MS-DOS HIMEM.SYS. Getting something like Win3.1 to work on non MS-DOS <= 6.22 is a difficult task which should only be undertaken by those who deal well with failure.

DOSfan1994 wrote:

Does PC-DOS have FAT32?

PC-DOS 7.1 does, but it was never given a full commercial release.

But as we said, DOS is heavily reliant on the 1024 cyl and 2GB cap for almost every single program. Windows 3.1 will not be able to take advantage of the additional space.

xjas wrote:

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.

Where in the floppy image file I should place Emm386 and HIMEM.SYS?

If you're asking a question like that, I suggest starting with DOS 6.22 to run Windows 3.1. I'm not trying to be insulting here. Microsoft was known to have inserted deliberate breakages of non MS DOS versions to Windows. Trying to work around them can be a real trial.

Ok just having for an emulator for PCem to reach 512 MB for their next release.

gdjacobs wrote:

If you're asking a question like that, I suggest starting with DOS 6.22 to run Windows 3.1. I'm not trying to be insulting here. Microsoft was known to have inserted deliberate breakages of non MS DOS versions to Windows. Trying to work around them can be a real trial.

Not true in my case. I have an IBM OEM version of Windows 3.1 designed to run on PC DOS

Ampera wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

If you're asking a question like that, I suggest starting with DOS 6.22 to run Windows 3.1. I'm not trying to be insulting here. Microsoft was known to have inserted deliberate breakages of non MS DOS versions to Windows. Trying to work around them can be a real trial.

Not true in my case. I have an IBM OEM version of Windows 3.1 designed to run on PC DOS

Are they floppies?

DOSfan1994 wrote:

Ampera wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

If you're asking a question like that, I suggest starting with DOS 6.22 to run Windows 3.1. I'm not trying to be insulting here. Microsoft was known to have inserted deliberate breakages of non MS DOS versions to Windows. Trying to work around them can be a real trial.

Not true in my case. I have an IBM OEM version of Windows 3.1 designed to run on PC DOS

Are they floppies?

A lot of my floppies are dead and remain as backups, but yes the images I took are floppy images.

DOSfan1994 wrote:

Ok just having for an emulator for PCem to reach 512 MB for their next release.

I have already explained to you that there is practically nothing you can do with Windows 3.1 that will ever require anywhere near 512 MB of RAM. This is a fundamental limitation of Windows 3.1 and of vintage computers in general that has nothing to do with PCem.

If you are just going to ignore people's advice, then please just stop posting.

gdjacobs wrote:

Microsoft was known to have inserted deliberate breakages of non MS DOS versions to Windows. Trying to work around them can be a real trial.

Yes, the famous AARD code. I don't think there's anything truly deliberate that's actually active – but there are probably few enough people trying to run Windows 3.1 on PC-DOS or DR-DOS that I wouldn't be surprised if there's some hopelessly obscure compatibility flaw that has gone undiagnosed and undocumented.

Win 3.1 is running fine for me...

I would just go the olden and golden way.... MS Dos 6.22
It has been tried so many times and has been shown to work great, since around 1990/91 or something like that.

No need to reinvent the fork or knife here.

brostenen wrote:

I would just go the olden and golden way.... MS Dos 6.22
It has been tried so many times and has been shown to work great, since around 1990/91 or something like that.

No need to reinvent the fork or knife here.

but, IBM....

PC-DOS is probably the cooler of the two. They are both from the same time period, but with PC-DOS having better features all around like the improved E text editor (Which I keep trying to use as edit, maybe I should make a batch file for that)

I agree, FAT32 for DOS is pretty pointless unless you use Windows 95b/c. You have full DOS functionality, but the caveat is that things actually work as opposed to other DOS FAT32 implementations.

Also I have a hate/hate relationship with Microsoft. I think the world would be a better place if Microsoft rolled over and died leaving no part of it left. The only, and singularly only reason I use Windows is because of it's software support, which is why everybody uses Windows, so that's why companies will program for Windows etc. etc. etc.

DR-DOS is also cool, I guess I have an affinity for companies that revolutionized, brought brand new features to market, and defined the way everybody uses computers today, but were ultimately rammed up the arse by Microsoft.

Which is another reason why I hate them.

Rant over, Use MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS. The further left you go the better support you have with programs, or you could just spend weeks looking at all of the different DOSs.
If you are trying to use a drive over 2GB your system is powerful enough to be using OS/2 (For a true Win16 and graphical DOS environment), or Windows 95b/c. This is why Microsoft didn't release standalone DOS with FAT32 support, and why PC-DOS 7.1 is only seen in boot up utilities like BIOS flashers.

I think we have different views on that. 🤣

I don't give a ***k about that when I do retro computing. To me it is just a way of reviving what I used to do in my childhood. And actually playing with my museum.

Oh well.... When we are talking about everyday computing, or modern computing if you like, then I use Android, Win7 and Linux. Well.... I just happens to like computers and technology. iPhones are great too. I just don't like Apples selfish and arrogant egoistic way of thinking. I hate that they use lightning chargers. I just don't hate lightning chargers. You know.... I hate that it's a symbol of them not wanting it to be easy for the consumer. At the same time loving the technology for what it is.

I don't know how to explain it better in english and on writing. So much easier to explain it with words instead.
Hope you know what I am trying to explain.

I use FAT32 on my DOS gaming machine (sans Win98) solely to have a ton of games installed simultaneously.

Ampera wrote:

But as we said, DOS is heavily reliant on the 1024 cyl and 2GB cap for almost every single program.

Re: Intel VS440FX refuses to boot DOS 6.22 from detected SSD

Normally, yes. 😉

Ampera wrote:

PC-DOS is probably the cooler of the two.

Agreed, I also like PC-DOS 3.30 more than the early MS versions (MS-DOS 6.2 is a real classic, though!).
It had a mascot (parrot) long before advent of the OS-tans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-tan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nngGGBkjMpU

Jo22 wrote:

Re: Intel VS440FX refuses to boot DOS 6.22 from detected SSD […]
Show full quote

Ampera wrote:

But as we said, DOS is heavily reliant on the 1024 cyl and 2GB cap for almost every single program.

Re: Intel VS440FX refuses to boot DOS 6.22 from detected SSD

Normally, yes. 😉

Ampera wrote:

PC-DOS is probably the cooler of the two.

Agreed, I also like PC-DOS 3.30 more than the early MS versions (MS-DOS 6.2 is a real classic, though!).
It had a mascot (parrot) long before advent of the OS-tans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-tan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nngGGBkjMpU

What the phouque?

I never knew the OS-tan was a thing.

Windows is notorious for having code to detect whether it's running on MS-DOS or not: http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_m … ncompatibility/
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
The point was to make it incompatible with DR-DOS. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also incompatible with FreeDOS or other clones. So I'd stick to MS-DOS for Windows.