I'm sure 95 had the option to boot "Previous version of MS-DOS" in its own boot options menu for that situation. I'm not sure if OSR2 ripped that out for the sake of FAT32

Even 98SE has this option (BootMulti=1), so I am confident it is present in 95OSR2.

Why bother with a dual-boot of DOS and W95, especially on a stinky 4GB CF card? Just boot W95 with BootGUI=0.

dr_st wrote on 2023-11-22, 07:25:

Even 98SE has this option (BootMulti=1), so I am confident it is present in 95OSR2.

Why bother with a dual-boot of DOS and W95, especially on a stinky 4GB CF card? Just boot W95 with BootGUI=0.

Im not 100% sure, but at windows95 has no standard dos files, like msdos.sys, and other, and i have my config built with many sound cards, with boot utilising, and i think win95 is not so stable, i dont want every time, when system crash, make a new install with dos.

dr_st wrote:

Why bother with a dual-boot of DOS and W95, especially on a stinky 4GB CF card? Just boot W95 with BootGUI=0.

I know that's a rhetorical question, but the OP's desire makes sense to me.

See, when Windows 9x was relevant, I was just thinking like you guys.

I had been focusing on Windows 9x and DOS 7 was okay for casually running some DOS programs.

Because, DOS at the time, was "the dark side" and mainly used for hackery and demanding, bare-metal stuff (DOS-based emulators, some games).

At the time, DOS 7 was good enough for that. It could even run vanilla Windows 3.1x (don't mean WfW).

What was left behind, though, were all the classic MS-DOS 5/6 utilities.
Which was okay, because I didn't aim for a proper DOS experience. DOS was a tool at the time, not something to feel nostalgic for.

And that's the difference to today. DOS is history, with the exception for a few niche things.

So there's a desire to have a "complete" and authentic DOS experience. MS-DOS 6.2x in short (or PC-DOS and DR DOS, maybe).

By using MS-DOS 6.x, someone can improve the DOS skills and remember how to do things "properly".
The way it was been done, the way it has been teached in IT class and by books.

I think that's the deeper meaning why people want to keep things separate.
It's less about functionality, but about the experience.

It's the same basic principle why people favor cheap 80s/90s clone consoles over modern FPGA implementations or emulator boxes.

envagyok wrote on 2023-11-22, 08:14:

Im not 100% sure, but at windows95 has no standard dos files, like msdos.sys, and other, and i have my config built with many sound cards, with boot utilising, and i think win95 is not so stable, i dont want every time, when system crash, make a new install with dos.

It actually does have this and more. In fact it gives you more CONFIG.SYS options to optimize memory usage, and some of the utilities have improved. When run with BootGUI=0, Win9x operates just like DOS 6. If you mess something up, reboot with F5 and you can manually edit your CONFIG/AUTOEXEC, just like in DOS6.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-11-22, 08:19:

What was left behind, though, were all the classic MS-DOS 5/6 utilities.
Which was okay, because I didn't aim for a proper DOS experience. DOS was a tool at the time, not something to feel nostalgic for

That is a good point - many DOS utilities were removed from Win9x DOS, because they were deemed unnecessary with Win32 alternatives available.

I ran DOS6 before 98SE, so I was able to simply bring these DOS utilities over and use them. Many of them are not DOS version sensitive, for those that are - there were usually hacks or even better alternatives.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-11-22, 08:19:

I think that's the deeper meaning why people want to keep things separate.
It's less about functionality, but about the experience.

It's the same basic principle why people favor cheap 80s/90s clone consoles over modern FPGA implementations or emulator boxes.

I agree with you here. If it's about the experience, then to each his own. I guess this authentic feeling was never important to me. That's why I'm not into retro consoles or their replicas either. I've always wanted to 'get things done' with as little tinkering as possible. I even did away with multiple boot configurations, and stuck to a single Config/Autoexec that works with 99% of games I wanted. And nowadays I prefer to emulate them in DOSBox.

So, yes, every time there is a thread like this I will be there advocating for a single boot config. Like those old guys that yell about their way being better. 😁

But it's just a matter of preference after all. 😉

Just want to note that dual boot DOS6.22 with Win9x is not 100% DOS6.22 friendly either.
The option of "Previous version of MSDOS" indeed launches DOS 6.22, but it doesn't properly restore all of DOS 6.22's boot files.

One evidence of this problem is when you choose "Previous version of MSDOS" and then create a boot disk using "FORMAT A: /S".

The resulting disk will have a mixture of DOS 6.22 Command.com and Win9x files. If you use it to boot, the system will just hang instead of booting to DOS 6.22.

I would look for alternatives to "Previous vereion of MSDOS".. A higher-level partition manager that knows how to truly preserve boot files between OSes, and gives you the option at boot time to choose which OS to use (DOS6.22 or Win9x, in this case), without even letting Win9x be aware that it has an older version of MSDOS.

I mean, in the end - it cannot be authentic DOS experience without this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqmmfOYyGaQ

I have a similar setup, except I used Win95 OSR2 and Dos 7.1 for the FAT32 support. I wound up using PLOP boot manager to dual boot into either, and it worked great. It's a little byzantine to get going, but I highly recommend it. I'd give you tips on how I set it up, but honestly I don't remember. I think I used diskpart on my Win10 machine to create the initial partitions, and then configured the boot settings and installed the OSes under PLOP.

There is no authentic solution?

Create a Win95 partition with FAT 32. (Minimum size > 256 MB).
Create a DOS partition with FAT 16.
Install a boot manager. Or use FDISK to change active partition.

MS-DOS partition would be drive D then for Win95.

envagyok wrote on 2023-11-22, 22:47:

There is no authentic solution?

PTS Bootmanager? It's from the 90s.

leileilol wrote on 2023-11-22, 06:22:

I'm sure 95 had the option to boot "Previous version of MS-DOS" in its own boot options menu for that situation. I'm not sure if OSR2 ripped that out for the sake of FAT32

It still had it, but it didn't work - Q155364/KB155364 says:

After starting your previous operating system (by pressing F4 when you see the "Starting Windows 95" message, or by choosing Pre […]
Show full quote

After starting your previous operating system (by pressing F4 when you see the
"Starting Windows 95" message, or by choosing Previous Operating System from the
Startup menu), when you exit the previous operating system session, your
computer stops responding (hangs) when you restart the computer.
...
This problem occurs with Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 (OSR2). Windows 95
OSR2 is designed to be preinstalled on new computers only, and cannot boot back
into Windows 95 from a previous operating system.

I don't know if this issue affects OSR1 too.

If your using CF cards I'd recommend getting 2 of the same (so you don't have to make changes in BIOS) and have 1 in dos and 1 for Win95
No need to mess around with boot managers, if you "break" one install your other is safe. You could even have your games, data, etc installed on a slave HDD if you don't want to copy everything to each card.