Glutton for punishment eh?

The simple answer is "no, go buy some cheap CF cards"

As for actually doing it with a single card? Uh...I dunno?

If it's Windows 3.x, which is not a real OS, then yes.

Should work with Win9x too, but you have to change autoexec.bat, config,sys und msdos,sys for the version you want to boot.

I do this with 2 Win98SE Installations on 1 HDD.

You can also Split the CF card into 4 partitions, each 1 GB and use a Boot_Manager like Bootstar or XFdisk

https://www.amazon.com/Kingston-microSD-Memor … rds=2gb+sd+card

Get three of these.

This would be far, far easier than trying to install four separate Windows installations on a 4GB card, where you'd quickly run out of space anyway.

You can make different hardware profiles in Win9x, I used them to share a single hdd between 2 laptops without issues.

@dr_st True, albeit it is close to it. And WfW 3.11 does things an OS also does.
Like controlling the disk directly (FastDisk), using VFAT or writing to a swapfile.
And networking also is a thing. Novell sold Network OSes that ran on DOS.
So strictly speaking, WfW can be considered as a primitve Network OS, too.

bluejeans wrote:

Possible to have 4 different windows installs on the same drive?

I do it all the time: The Ultimate Multi-Boot Windows Benching Machine

It's also possible to install NT versions of Windows to different folders on the same partition, but it's not necessarily a good idea. Early versions of Windows let you choose the default Windows folder, for later ones an unattended install script is required. If there's multiple installs of the same release of Windows on the same partition it's likely to work fine, for different versions I'd be sceptical.

Mostly it'll work, but a minority of software is poorly written and might get upset. Some particularly awful software defaulted to installing under 'program files' and then fell over when it found non English versions of Windows use a different directory name..

Jo22 wrote:

@dr_st True, albeit it is close to it. And WfW 3.11 does things an OS also does. Like controlling the disk directly (FastDisk), […]
Show full quote

@dr_st True, albeit it is close to it. And WfW 3.11 does things an OS also does.
Like controlling the disk directly (FastDisk), using VFAT or writing to a swapfile.
And networking also is a thing. Novell sold Network OSes that ran on DOS.
So strictly speaking, WfW can be considered as a primitve Network OS, too.

Yes, it definitely has some properties of an OS. The definition is not clear-cut.

The key thing is that it is not involved in the boot process at all, which makes it easier for multiple versions to coexist within the same drive and even the same partition, without having to manually replace/adjust bootfiles every time.

Yup, I do fully agree (my post wasn't ment as a criticism, btw.)
I just wanted to say that WfW 3.11 really was an in between of GUI and OS (a bit like DESQview/X).
Unlike OS/2, which was a real OS but had a name that suggested the opposite ("OS half"). 🤣