chinny22 wrote:

if you also want Win3x installed I wouldn't recommend the above though

Personally I've decided I can't be bothered with having multiple OSes on one machine.

DOS 6 / Win 3.1: 386
Win 95: 486
Win 98: Pentium / Pentium II / K6
Win XP: Pentium 4 / Athlon XP

I like to compartmentalise.

brassicGamer wrote:

Personally I've decided I can't be bothered with having multiple OSes on one machine. […]
Show full quote

chinny22 wrote:

if you also want Win3x installed I wouldn't recommend the above though

Personally I've decided I can't be bothered with having multiple OSes on one machine.

DOS 6 / Win 3.1: 386
Win 95: 486
Win 98: Pentium / Pentium II / K6
Win XP: Pentium 4 / Athlon XP

I like to compartmentalise.

How much ram do you have on the 486? and isnt that processor major underkill for windows 95?

I've also been using MS-DOS 7.00 (up to Windows 95a) or MS-DOS 7.10 (for later versions) as my DOS version (by editing my MSDOS.SYS file).
I've never experienced any problems with MS-DOS 7.00/7.1, compared to MS-DOS 6.22.
Most of the additional MS-DOS commands can be found on your Windows 95 installation CD or, under Windows/Command.
If you just want to install Windows 3.11, because of Program Manager, then you have the option in Windows 95 to also use Program Manager (although, I don't see the point, due to ease of use of the Windows 95 desktop).

T4600C wrote:

How much ram do you have on the 486? and isnt that processor major underkill for windows 95?

64MB EDO. I guess you're right but I did all my gaming on that 486 when I was a teenager and it was my first home-built machine so I have special feelings for it. I guess I wanted to have at least one socket 3 system running. Otherwise it will be a Pentium MMX on an SS7 board (can't see much point using a 133 when have the choice).

EDIT: it's a DX4-120

Depending on what type of CPU intensive tasks you want to run on your 486 based PC, any DX4 100 MHz or above CPU with, preferably, at least 16 MB RAM is sufficient for running Windows 95.

jesolo wrote:

Depending on what type of CPU intensive tasks you want to run on your 486 based PC, any DX4 100 MHz or above CPU with, preferably, at least 16 MB RAM is sufficient for running Windows 95.

I totally agree. My first Windows 95 computer (I installed the last two release candidates even before it came out) was a Cyrix 486DX-33 with 6MB RAM.
It was more than acceptably useable. I gradually upgraded it into a Cyrix 5x86-100 / 8MB RAM and then a Pentium 120 / 16MB RAM before 98 came out though.

DX2/66 with 8Mb back in the day. Was more useful then running Win3.x
If your stripping away the GUI Dos7 is perfect for any 486. I would argue that Win95 is very nice for copying files, networking, all the "OS" type stuff for a 486 as well even if it is slow, its just easier to work with then Win3.x
But saying that I usually install Windows For Workgroups on 486's just for the fun of it. Not like your going to play Win95 games on a 486 anyway

Has anyone confirmed on the dual boot of 6.22 and Win95 on the same hard drive without a boot utility?
Is the Win95 upgrade required?
Does the drive require partitioning? (I assume it would be recommended so that FAT16 would be for DOS and FAT32 for Win95?)

Any success from anyone?

Thanks in advance,
-M

magicmanred wrote:

Has anyone confirmed on the dual boot of 6.22 and Win95 on the same hard drive without a boot utility?

People have only been doing that for the last twenty years.

Is the Win95 upgrade required?

Maybe? Someone linked to https://rubenerd.com/dual-boot-windows-31-95/ earlier in the thread, which seems to suggest as much. I'm not so sure it matters.

Does the drive require partitioning? (I assume it would be recommended so that FAT16 would be for DOS and FAT32 for Win95?)

FAT32 is not required for Win95; it didn't even have FAT32 until OSR2 ("Win95B"). Using FAT16 only means that you are restricted to a 2 GB partition, which should be plenty for Win95, especially since you can always install programs to another partition if you need to. (It also means you might run out of space a little faster if you have lots and lots of tiny files, but that's not much of a consideration.)

As previously noted in this thread, there is not much to be gained in using DOS 6.22 instead of the Windows 95 MS-DOS mode. (There is arguably not much to be gained in using Windows 95 instead of Windows 98, either.)

I wouldn't bother with DOS 6/Win 9x dual-boot.
It's really better to do Windows 95/DOS 7 pseudo-dual boot.

First, edit msdos.sys and set BootGUI=0 in [options]

This will disable automatic loading of Windows on startup. You can also set Logo=0 to have more MS-DOS like experience.

To start Windows, type win.

Then, create config.sys/autoexec.bat menu with two items, DOS and WINDOWS as described here:
http://www.uncreativelabs.net/textfiles/dos/6-2MENU.TXT

For WINDOWS option, add "win" in autoexec.bat at the end.

This way you'll have a boot menu with Windows 95 and Windows 95's DOS 7.0/7.1, no partitioning and (optionally) FAT32.

Azarien wrote:

I wouldn't bother with DOS 6/Win 9x dual-boot. It's really better to do Windows 95/DOS 7 pseudo-dual boot. […]
Show full quote

I wouldn't bother with DOS 6/Win 9x dual-boot.
It's really better to do Windows 95/DOS 7 pseudo-dual boot.

First, edit msdos.sys and set BootGUI=0 in [options]

This will disable automatic loading of Windows on startup. You can also set Logo=0 to have more MS-DOS like experience.

To start Windows, type win.

Then, create config.sys/autoexec.bat menu with two items, DOS and WINDOWS as described here:
http://www.uncreativelabs.net/textfiles/dos/6-2MENU.TXT

For WINDOWS option, add "win" in autoexec.bat at the end.

This way you'll have a boot menu with Windows 95 and Windows 95's DOS 7.0/7.1, no partitioning and (optionally) FAT32.

This

Yes. I don't even bother with those boot menus. I just have it always boot to DOS, and if I want Windows, I type "win". It's faster than selecting from the menu. 😀

Here's a little guide in how to set up such a boot menu configuration: How to create a boot (start up) menu under Windows 9x/ME

dr_st wrote:

Yes. I don't even bother with those boot menus. I just have it always boot to DOS, and if I want Windows, I type "win". It's faster than selecting from the menu. 😀

Maybe, but you may want a really different configuration for DOS and Windows (e.g. CD-ROM driver, which you don't want to cripple your Win95, different EMM settings etc.)

Good point. I haven't actually seen any DOS drivers cripple anything in Windows, but many of them are indeed unnecessary.

My "easy" way is the following :

Partition the first hard disk of the PC (using a floppy with DOS 6.22 and fdisk) with FAT16 2GB partitions (4 partitions maximum per hard disk) and format.
Then install Windows 9X on C:
When I need DOS6.22, I simply insert a DOS 6.22 floppy (with all relevant DOS tools and drivers) in the floppy drive and reboot the PC from this floppy. I can then have access to any partition of the first hard disk.

Using Win95OSR2 or Win98 and relevant USB key drivers, I can then access any USB key formated in FAT32 (usefull for data and ISO transfer)

Hello all...

I'm chiming in because I've had to do this a while back on a PC.
(Dos 6.22 & Win3.11 & Win95 all on the same partition)

I have done it successfully, and it's a bit of a headache (doing it naturally, without any third party boot/os/menu software).

Would anyone like me to re-visit my note archive and try to do a write up for you guys?

If I recall correctly, it will strongly rely on what version of Windows95 you will be installing.
But I'm happy to dig it up and post it here if it helps anyone.
(It's the least I can do for all the help Vogons has given me 😁)

magicmanred wrote on 2022-06-13, 16:56:

Hello all... […]
Show full quote

Hello all...

I'm chiming in because I've had to do this a while back on a PC.
(Dos 6.22 & Win3.11 & Win95 all on the same partition)

I have done it successfully, and it's a bit of a headache (doing it naturally, without any third party boot/os/menu software).

Would anyone like me to re-visit my note archive and try to do a write up for you guys?

If I recall correctly, it will strongly rely on what version of Windows95 you will be installing.
But I'm happy to dig it up and post it here if it helps anyone.
(It's the least I can do for all the help Vogons has given me 😁)

yeah man post it here. this thread comes up a lot during searches and it will surely help someone and always good to have a record of options.

Here is how I did it...
Full disclosure, I am assuming a certain level of tech abilities, so if anything is unclear or if anyone needs any particular step broken down, please don't hesitate to ask.

IMPORTANT:
I did this with the following software at hand:
1: MS DOS 6.22 Installation floppy disks.
2: Windows 3.11 Installation floppy disks.
3: MS Dos 6.22 Boot floppy disk.
4: Windows 95 "B" (4.00.950B) Installation CD.
5: Windows 95 "A" Boot floppy disk (REQUIRED)
6: Windows 95 "B" Boot floppy disk (Not needed, but good to have).

The process:
• I made a clean fresh 2GB FAT partition (I believe 2GB is max for FAT). You can achieve this with your DOS 6.22 boot disks and FDisk/Format commands.
• I then installed DOS 6.22 on that partition. (When I did it, it was the only partition created on the HDD, which was a 20GB IDE HDD)
• I removed any floppy disk, the rebooted into the new MS-DOS, and installed WFW 3.11 into "C:\WIN311" to not confuse the later Win95 install (you can use 3.1 or whatever DOS based Windows version you like).
• I renamed the "win" executable in my Win311 folder to WIN.OLD by typing the following: (Sometimes Win95 installs will find the executable and think you have Windows installed already, then cancel installation)
C:
cd\win311 (replace win311 with whatever folder you installed windows 3.xx in)
ren win.com win.old
• I then edited Config.sys & Autoexec.bat to have CD Rom drivers loaded into memory. (if you do not know how to do this, please research a good write-up. (I use vide-cdd.sys and shsucdx.com since they have small memory footprints)
• Rebooted back into DOS and popped in a Windows 95 "B" CD.
• Went to the CD drive letter and ran setup to install Windows 95 by typing the following: (I installed it into the "C:\Windows" folder)
d: (replace "d" with whatever driveletter your CD-ROM occupied)
setup
If Win95 setup still detects your windows 3.xx installation, see if there is a PATH value of the Win3xx folder set in your Autoexec.bat file. If so, remove it, restart, and rerun Win95 setup from CD.
Additionally, win3xx may have added "ifshlp.sys" in your config.sys file. Remove that as well. (You can add it back later if you need it).
• Once Win95 was installed and booted into, I clicked start/run and typed in "Command" to bring up a command prompt (do not "reboot into dos prompt")
• In command prompt, I copied/backed up the root of the c:\ contents to a temp folder by typing the following
c:
cd\
attrib *.* -h -s -r +a
md temp
copy *.* temp
• I removed the Win95 CD, popped in the Win95 "A" boot disk, exited the Command Prompt. Clicked "Start" then "Shut down" then "Reboot".
• Once I got to the command prompt and booted off of the Win95 "A" disk, I typed the following:
a:
cd\
sys c:
• I then copied the backed up contents from earlier that we put into the "C:\Temp" folder, over to the C:\ root by typing the following:
attrib c:\*.* -h -s -r +a
copy c:\temp\*.* c:\
• When asked if you want to over-write anything, select yes to all.
• I then renamed the Win311 executable back to what it originally was by typing the following:
c:
cd\win311 (replace win311 with wherever you installed your win3.xx)
ren win.old win.com
• Finally done, have a beer.

Some explanation of why this works:
Win95B ruins something in the MBR which only makes you able to "Boot into previous version of MS-DOS" only once, then it is gone forever.
This process you read above installs the Win95A MBR signatures that do not get corrupt when selecting "Boot into previous version of MS-DOS".
It also re-copies the Win95B root system files back to the C:\ so that the only thing left that was really modified was installing the Win95A MBR signature. (which is why the Win95A boot disk is needed).

Now, when you reboot your PC... you can press "F8" when it says "Starting Windows 95" and you will have a prompt.
From there, you can pick "Boot into previous version of MS-DOS" to get into your MS-DOS 6.22 where your Windows 3.11 also lives (as well as your Win95 install).
From DOS 6.22 you can launch Win3.11.
To get to Win95, reboot and just let Windows 95 load naturally without pressing F8 or any F-keys.
Do NOT run any DOS based Defrag or Scandisk or disk tools. Windows 95 operates with Long File Names and this will ALL be corrupt if you do so.
If Win95 did a good job during the install, it would have re-named all of these tools in your DOS folder and created a .BAT file telling you to not run them, but rather to boot into Win95 and run the Win95 versions off them.

Cheers and have fun!
Here's a pic of my Super Socket 7 PC booted into System Commander (My MS-DOS & Win3.11 & Win95 are all on the same 2GB partition which was done before System Commander was even installed).

leileilol wrote on 2015-08-24, 23:25:

Jorpho wrote:

You may want to consider just using Windows 95's MS-DOS mode. There doesn't seem to be anything that works particularly better in MS-DOS 6.22 than in MS-DOS mode.

Only thing I can recall that does are some really fussy Mindscape/Software Toolworks installers.

Do you mind telling me which ones those are? I installed megarace on windows 95 without issue? possibly because i used a 350mb HDD.
I do know some win3.x apps such as "HSC digital morph" will erroneously say "disk full" if you try to install them on a partition over 512mb, so FAT32 parts used for win95 might be the source of these problems rather than something specific to dos7 itself.