I keep DOS 6.22 + Win3.1 on a separate hard disk from my Win98 installation purely for nostalgia reasons. Like you, I had that setup when I first got my computer.

The only technical reason to run this instead of Win9x is that a couple of programs (usually sound card drivers) can detect DOS 7.x and fail to install with a "this program cannot be used under Windows" message. I've never had that issue with games though.

Can you not use Setver to fool those programs?

No, at least not with the Creative drivers. IIRC, someone here uploaded hacked drivers that work under any version of DOS.

I had same choice with my 486. I went with Dos 6.22/Win3x and happy I did.
WFW 3.11 has no benefit for a games rig but the GUI is nice for file management and can be networked with Win9x easily
Really though its for that nostalgia hit

Practically speaking Win95 is the superior OS in every way, It's dos compatibility is fine 99% of the time you get FAT32 and the GUI is nicer, but like you I've already got a few 9x PC's so where is the fun in that?

You can install both without any 3rd party software, Install dos/Win3x then install WIn95 and it'll ask if you want to upgrade or duel boot but personally I don't see the point as 3.11 will be redundant.

viper32cm wrote on 2020-04-16, 03:19:

there's something appealing

If this is all about some intangible "appeal" then there is no point in arguing the technical merits one way or another.

If I wanted to split the difference and go with a dual boot configuration, I would need some sort of boot manager, correct?

If you install DOS 6.22 and then install Windows 95 or Win9x, you can press F8 during startup and select "Previous version of MS-DOS" from the menu. (You might even be able to automate this by editing MSDOS.SYS.) The autoexec.bat and config.sys files get shuffled around in the process, but it's nothing to really worry about. Older DOS disk utilities will tend to object to the presence of long filenames, but that's nothing new.

Errius wrote on 2020-04-16, 10:40:

No, at least not with the Creative drivers. IIRC, someone here uploaded hacked drivers that work under any version of DOS.

I think that was Patched CTCM/CTCU to remove Windows detection . It removes the check for the "winbootdir" environment variable. That one package of Creative drivers seems to be the only real concern.

Yes, that's it. MS-DOS 7.x won't let you get rid of that winbootdir environment variable.

You can also try UNISOUND to init the SB16. User feipoa mentioned the same problem with CTCM here Re: Any issue running a CH Gamecard 3 Automatic with an AWE64Gold?

Unisound works perfectly with any DOS version
UNISOUND - Universal ISA PnP Sound Card Driver for DOS v0.81b

If you already have a system with Win9x, then it does make sense to have a DOS6.22/Win3.11 system, especially if it's running somewhat weaker hardware.

If one decides to dedicate a single system for retro-DOS gaming, I always suggest Win98 SE and its pure DOS mode.

Windows 95 will be suboptimal with only 16 MB of RAM. Yes it will work but you'll wish you had more; it'll basically become a single-tasking OS if you don't want to use your swapfile all the time.

Depends on the software you want to run. I have a P75 running Win95 with 16 MB, too. It runs fine and does not swap that much. Most early Win95 software only require 8 MB, so 16 MB is sufficient. Just make sure you are not installing IE4 with Active Desktop and all that crap. Then, it gets unusable with 16 MB.

hell I have a win95B install on a 386sx16 with 8MB RAM. It's slow but perfectly usable. System is on a CF card, swap is on a SCSI mechanical HDD on the busmastering 1542B

keenmaster486 wrote on 2020-04-21, 16:55:

Windows 95 will be suboptimal with only 16 MB of RAM. Yes it will work but you'll wish you had more; it'll basically become a single-tasking OS if you don't want to use your swapfile all the time.

I remember Win95 8MB being "crap" on my old P100, so much so that I downgraded to Windows 3.11 until mid/late-1996 when I got 16MB RAM. I remember 16MB RAM being "acceptable" for Win95 and "crap" for Win98 with that system. But 32MB seems to do the trick for Win9x with those Socket 5/early-Socket 7 systems. Too bad I didn't have the money for 32MB back then.

Because of my self imposed RAM limitation I've decided to go with DOS 6.22/Win 3.11. It'll be a fun experiment if nothing else. I might even see if I can grab a copy of Packard Bell Navigator just for the hell of it (my childhood P100 was a PB).

I tried installing W95C on a 486 with 8 MB. Not only was it very slow, but after updates, it swallowed up nearly all of the free space on the disk.

viper32cm wrote on 2020-04-21, 22:59:

I remember Win95 8MB being "crap" on my old P100, so much so that I downgraded to Windows 3.11 until mid/late-1996 when I got 16MB RAM. I remember 16MB RAM being "acceptable" for Win95 and "crap" for Win98 with that system. But 32MB seems to do the trick for Win9x with those Socket 5/early-Socket 7 systems. Too bad I didn't have the money for 32MB back then.

Back in time, I've used to see laptops and 386 PCs struggling with Win95 on 4MiB of RAM..
So yeah, I can fully relate to this. My father had a 386DX40 PC but upgraded to 16MiB of RAM just for Win95.

He never did regret this. If memory serves, an interview with Win95 devs revealed that the minimum requirement of 4MiB was ridiculous.
According to what I remember, it was stated that the original Win95 required *at least* 32MiB of RAM to no to swap to disk.

Which makes sense to me, since OS/2 Warp was comparably "memory hungry".
Alas, when Win95 came out, almost no existing PC met the true requirements.

Memory was expensive and many Turbo XTs and 286 PCs were still out there.
Most of which were equipped with a lousy 1MiB of RAM only and no EMS, even!

The whole thing remembers me of the Win Vista desaster. Vista was a powerful OS, requiring a powerful computer.
Thanks to false marketing (sys requirements etc) it had no chance but to fail.

Edit: Win98SE, while more complex, did run "okay" on 24MiB of RAM on a Pentium 75 already.
Perhaps thanks to its more advanced memory managment and ability to run many programs directly from VCACHE.

I have more nostalgia for Win3.x because I used it for a hell of a long time until I got a second hand win98 system for a good price. In it's final incarnation on my win3.x box it was running the Calmira II shell. Yeah used Win95 at work but that was about it.

The Windows Desktop Update that came with later versions or IE4 bumped up the ram requirements.
Not going to say 95 was fast on a dx2/66 but it was usable. Same can't be said if you installed the update

By the way, there's nothing wrong with running Windows 3.1 from Windows 95.
That way, you've got the best of two worlds. 😀

More information here:
Re: Is Windows 3.1 or Older Necessary?

With Win95 i had too many inconsistencies, esp. with drivers and the resulting BlueScreens and error messages, especially with nonPnP ISA Cards like the GUS.With PnP cards Win95 often shuffled the ressources, so that the fixed DOS config failed. I remember the official Release and the presentation by Bill Gates with a nice BlueScreen. On the other Hand the UI was in my opinion much better than Win3.x. Win98 was a huge step and overrules Win95 in every sense, except memory usage (nearly double requrement) - 32MB and more needed for fluent work, no problem for most 486er with 256kB cache.
With DOS 7.x i observed zero! disadvantages vs. DOS 6.2x

My choice would be DOS 6.2x + Win3.1x for 486 class DOS PCs (8-32MB RAM) and Win98SE for Pentium. 100 and faster (32MB + RAM)

DOS6.22 and Win3.11 are installed now. This system (P100, 16Mb, 2MB S3 Trio64V+, 256KB asynch cash) must be considerably faster than my old Packard Bell, as the Win 3.11 splash screen barely shows up before you're in the desktop environment. Performance is quite good, and I'm actually thinking about disabling the cache to slow it down.

It's been approximately 25 years since I've used Win3.11. It's funny how primitive it is, even compared to the Win95C. It almost makes me want to get my hands on a copy of the RTM version of Win95 for comparison because I know I hated that version in comparison to 3.11, at least early on.