VOGONS


First post, by Muz

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Where can I find a tutorial for Windows 95, and Windows 98 dual boot setup in a Pentium 3 CPU?

Reply 1 of 12, by weldum

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

for a pentium 3 machine you may be have some problems, depending on the processor speed and memory amount. aside from that, is relatively straightforward, you can install each windows to a different hard drive and boot each one with a boot manager like plop. also i think you cam install both in different primary partitions on the same disk, and using a custom dos boot menu, you can select which os to boot

Ohh, the humanity 😢
386SX 25-C3 800-P3 900-Atom 1.6-C-D 2.13-P4 2.26-P4HT 3.0-P-DC 1.6-AFX 2.6-FX 3.3

Reply 2 of 12, by jesolo

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

A Boot Manager is your best option, particularly if you want to install both operating systems on the same hard drive.
Back in the day I used OS/2's Boot Manager to boot between DOS 6.22 and Windows 95 but, the principle remains the same.

The question I have is why you would want to install both Windows 95 & Windows 98 on the same PC? What does Windows 95 offer that Windows 98 doesn't?

Reply 3 of 12, by derSammler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

There are a couple of games using WinG that don't work well with Windows 98, since MS removed hardware-accelerated WinG from Windows 98, making those games run sluggish. Fury³ is an example (funny that this is actually a game by MS).

However, from the Win9x line, you only really need Win98SE. It has DOS, can use VDX and WDM drivers, and is quite stable.

http://retro-net.de/blog.html

Reply 4 of 12, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
jesolo wrote:

A Boot Manager is your best option, particularly if you want to install both operating systems on the same hard drive.
Back in the day I used OS/2's Boot Manager to boot between DOS 6.22 and Windows 95 but, the principle remains the same.

Don't know about 95 and 98, but there is certainly no need to have a third-party boot manager for DOS 6.22 and Windows 9x. Windows 9x takes care of everything by itself.

derSammler wrote:

There are a couple of games using WinG that don't work well with Windows 98, since MS removed hardware-accelerated WinG from Windows 98, making those games run sluggish. Fury³ is an example (funny that this is actually a game by MS).

Will the difference be noticeable on a fast enough PC (K6-2/3/P-III)?

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 5 of 12, by ATauenis

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Muz wrote:

Where can I find a tutorial for Windows 95, and Windows 98 dual boot setup in a Pentium 3 CPU?

You may use older versions of System Commander from V Communications (like 3, 4, 5.0/2000). It have built-in wizard that helps with installing two OSes on same disk.

But the difference between 95 and 98 is too little so there is no need to use both OSes on same computer (except if there is a some bad hardware that can work only with Win95).

2×Soviet ZX-Speccy, 1×MacIIsi, 1×086, 1×286, 2×386DX, 1×386SX, 2×486, 1×P54C, 7×P55C, 6×Slot1, 4×S370, 1×SlotA, 2×S462, ∞×Modern.

Reply 6 of 12, by jesolo

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
dr_st wrote:

Don't know about 95 and 98, but there is certainly no need to have a third-party boot manager for DOS 6.22 and Windows 9x. Windows 9x takes care of everything by itself.

True, but I don't like to have all my operating systems on the same partition (personal preference).

Reply 7 of 12, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Define "having all my operating systems on the same partition".

The only thing that has to be on the same partition is the bootloader and startup files. Either way, they have to be there, whether it's the OS bootloader or the third party boot manager's.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 8 of 12, by jesolo

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
dr_st wrote:

Define "having all my operating systems on the same partition".

The only thing that has to be on the same partition is the bootloader and startup files. Either way, they have to be there, whether it's the OS bootloader or the third party boot manager's.

My reference was specifically to where you have an existing MS-DOS 6.22/Windows 3.11 installation and you want to "upgrade" to Windows 95 but, also retain your old system files.
If you have already partitioned your hard drive to use the full capacity, then you have to install Windows 95 on the same partition.
Since all the startup files are just renamed in the root directory, you have to be careful not to change or delete those files.
Hence, my recommendation for a Boot Manager in order to set up MS-DOS 6.22/Windows 3.11 & Windows 95 on two separate partitions. But, then you will have to re-partition and format and your hard drive in any event.

I seem to recall having issues with using Windows 9x's Boot Loader to handle the start up process between DOS 6.22 & Windows 95 (or, I just didn't like the way how Windows 95 handled it) - that is why I ended up just using OS/2's Boot Manager back in the day for that purpose.
However, I later on realised that there was no real benefit of having MS-DOS 6.22 & Windows 95 on the same system.
So, I ended up ditching MS-DOS completely and just set up a Start-up (Boot) Menu configuration under Windows 95 to either boot straight into MS-DOS 7.x or Windows 95.

However, for purposes of this thread, if you want to dual boot between Windows 95 & Windows 98, the simplest way is to use a Boot Manager.

Reply 9 of 12, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
jesolo wrote:

If you have already partitioned your hard drive to use the full capacity, then you have to install Windows 95 on the same partition.

True, but as you said, if you want to have a boot manager you have to repartition anyways.

jesolo wrote:

Since all the startup files are just renamed in the root directory, you have to be careful not to change or delete those files.

You always have to be careful not to accidentally delete any boot files in the root directory, whether you have 1 OS there, 2 or 15. I don't see why this is a real problem.

Maybe you can say that there is a risk of confusion which set of files you're touching at any given moment (depending on which OS is booted); this may be something I can understand. It's not a big deal in my eyes - most of them are just simple plain text files and you can always revert any changes.

jesolo wrote:

I seem to recall having issues with using Windows 9x's Boot Loader to handle the start up process between DOS 6.22 & Windows 95 (or, I just didn't like the way how Windows 95 handled it)

If there are any possible issues, it will be interesting to learn of them.

jesolo wrote:

However, I later on realised that there was no real benefit of having MS-DOS 6.22 & Windows 95 on the same system.

That's absolutely true (I've been saying that as well), but if you want to run Win3.11 as well it may be easier to do it this way.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 10 of 12, by oeuvre

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'd use System Commander 7 and install 95 on the first partition or drive, then install System Commander in 95 and then use System Commander to install 98SE on another partition/drive.

HP Z420 Workstation Intel Xeon E5-1620, 32GB, RADEON HD7850 2GB, SSD + HD, XP/7
ws90Ts2.gif

Reply 11 of 12, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Yeh I also think I didn't like the way Win95 booted to previous MS-Dos when I first upgraded. I seem to remember Win95 renames system files when booting to previous version to get around the below and it was really easy to get mixed up with which system files belonged to which OS, especially if it was say a dos driver install that updated systems files and broke everything.
But it took me less then a month to realise dos is totally unnecessary in a system running Win9x and never bothered since.

For a single Dos/Win9x and as many NT bases OS's as you want the MS Boot loader is completely fine though, as long as you follow the install the earliest to latest rule.

Win9x's cant co-exist though (or different dos versions either) as these OS's EXPECT io.sys to be its own version. this is where 3rd party boot loader trickery becomes useful.

No idea about non MS OS's like OS2 but that wasn't the OP's question anyway

Reply 12 of 12, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
chinny22 wrote:

Yeh I also think I didn't like the way Win95 booted to previous MS-Dos when I first upgraded. I seem to remember Win95 renames system files when booting to previous version to get around the below and it was really easy to get mixed up with which system files belonged to which OS, especially if it was say a dos driver install that updated systems files and broke everything.

Somehow I don't remember it being that bad. If I recall, Win9x makes sure that whatever OS is currently booted has the startup files at the standard names and places it expects. So if you are booted into DOS, DOS applications that modify the startup files will alter the correct ones, and the same for Win9x.

chinny22 wrote:

But it took me less then a month to realise dos is totally unnecessary in a system running Win9x and never bothered since.

Yep, that's what happened to me as well.

chinny22 wrote:

For a single Dos/Win9x and as many NT bases OS's as you want the MS Boot loader is completely fine though, as long as you follow the install the earliest to latest rule.

Win9x's cant co-exist though (or different dos versions either) as these OS's EXPECT io.sys to be its own version. this is where 3rd party boot loader trickery becomes useful.

That's what I was expecting. Thanks for confirming and summarizing it nicely.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys