«

[Grinder]

I'm in the process of setting up a guide to building the ultimate DOS machine.
Right now I'm working on the dual boot thing and need some opinions/help.
First of all, I need boot manager recommendations. I would like a low-resource,
easy to set up and most of all simple boot manager. Any help is appreciated.
Second, any of you that have some experience with dual booting DOS and any
other OS, please share any advice you might have. Thanks!

[Mighty Midget]

First, you'll need a FAT16 partition for DOS. I'm not sure, but I think there are issues with FAT32. NTFS is not a good idea.

Then FAT32/NTFS for the others (if Windows)

(Hey, you said any advice )

[Grinder]

ANY advice is indeed helpful. Question: Do you think that FAT16 for DOS thing matters if I used FreeDOS?

[Mighty Midget]

From Wikipedia, freedos

Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 and ReactOS

The Windows NT family of operating systems, including Windows 2000, XP, and 2003 no longer make use of MS-DOS as a core component of the system. These systems can make use of the FAT filesystems, which are used by MS-DOS and earlier versions of Windows; however, they typically use the NTFS (New Technology File System) by default. FreeDOS can coexist on these systems on a separate partition on NTFS systems, or on the same partition on FAT systems. The FreeDOS kernel can be booted by adding it to the Windows NT Boot Loader configuration file, boot.ini, or freeldr.ini for ReactOS.[/b]

It also seems, from the FAT article, that FAT32 should be fine with DOS, but there's a bugger in my memory saying there were some issues. Basically, FAT16/32 is an hdd size issue.

[Icewolf]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jan 4 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]273243[/snapback]</div>

It also seems, from the FAT article, that FAT32 should be fine with DOS, but there's a bugger in my memory saying there were some issues. Basically, FAT16/32 is an hdd size issue.
[/b]

Yep. Perfect Midget! k:

FAT 16 has problems handling more than 3.8 or something (short under 4) GB of HDD size.
E.g. you have a 5 GB HDD then FAT 16 can only handle the above number. The rest stays unused or even untouched.
I'm not quite sure if could get around that by partitioning. So partitioning a 5 GB drive into 2x 2,5 GB or something like that.

[The Fifth Horseman]

Even if so, the cluster size would be murder.

If you go with Freedos or DOS 7.1, pick FAT 32.

As for any tutorials... I had one saved. I think I might have a copy on me right now...

Ah! :w00t: Here it is!

[Grinder]

Eeeeexcellent, horseman, I'm just going through it. Can I use some of the info for my guide?

[gregor]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Jan 4 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]273249[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jan 4 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]273243[/snapback]

It also seems, from the FAT article, that FAT32 should be fine with DOS, but there's a bugger in my memory saying there were some issues. Basically, FAT16/32 is an hdd size issue.
[/b]

Yep. Perfect Midget! k:

FAT 16 has problems handling more than 3.8 or something (short under 4) GB of HDD size.
E.g. you have a 5 GB HDD then FAT 16 can only handle the above number. The rest stays unused or even untouched.
I'm not quite sure if could get around that by partitioning. So partitioning a 5 GB drive into 2x 2,5 GB or something like that.
[/b][/quote]

Wasn't that 2.1GB? The problme could be solved by more partitions.

Some games had issues with FAT 32. and some had their fixes just recenlty (after being "abandonded", hacked and fixed)

as for the boot loader as i know the DOS had something you could set up so it asked you when computer loaded which system and settings you want to initiate. only a few command lines were added into autoexec.bat & config.sys files. same thing is in Windows if you press the F5 key after startup.

i used to use LILO cause i had Linux installed (i actually still have the Linux but it doens't work with new graphics card). i manged to destroy it. so i can't say a lot about it. only the interface was neat and shinny

for DOS games in my opinion it is better to install FAT 16. they were made for those systems anyway (file names with 8 letters+3 letters extension). WIN 95 works good with DOS 6.22 and FAT 16.


BTW did you give any thought to virus protection in your guide? viruses were much more common in DOS and WIN 95 than they are now.

[Grinder]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ Jan 5 2007, 10:34 AM) [snapback]273400[/snapback]</div>

Some games had issues with FAT 32. and some had their fixes just recenlty (after being "abandonded", hacked and fixed)

as for the boot loader as i know the DOS had something you could set up so it asked you when computer loaded which system and settings you want to initiate. only a few command lines were added into autoexec.bat & config.sys files. same thing is in Windows if you press the F5 key after startup.

i used to use LILO cause i had Linux installed (i actually still have the Linux but it doens't work with new graphics card). i manged to destroy it. so i can't say a lot about it. only the interface was neat and shinny

for DOS games in my opinion it is better to install FAT 16. they were made for those systems anyway (file names with 8 letters+3 letters extension). WIN 95 works good with DOS 6.22 and FAT 16.


BTW did you give any thought to virus protection in your guide? viruses were much more common in DOS and WIN 95 than they are now.
[/b]

Okay, I'm not sure yet wether to use FAT-32 or FAT-16, but I doubt I'll ever go beyond 1.5GB Harddrives, and I hate LFN (big fan of 8-character names), but I am pretty sure that I will use FreeDOS.
Another idea just came to my mind - how about using small (200-800MB) HDs for the OS itself and keeping the software etc. on a dedicated HD? Can anyone recommend/advise against this?

As for virus protection, I was going to use F-Prot, but if anyone has a better suggestion, please share it.

Right now, trying to use Linux as secondary OS seems futile on that kind of system, but I'll keep looking into it. Does anyone know the minimum requirements for Fluxbox?

[gregor]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Henning @ Jan 5 2007, 11:41 AM) [snapback]273417[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ Jan 5 2007, 10:34 AM) [snapback]273400[/snapback]

[/b]

Another idea just came to my mind - how about using small (200-800MB) HDs for the OS itself and keeping the software etc. on a dedicated HD? Can anyone recommend/advise against this?
[/b][/quote]

well i have on the old ocmputer 850 MB disk and it's devided into two partitions. one 400 and one 450. the has WIN 95, netscape communicator (or at least it had ), word, excel, it also had corel 4.0. and it had about 100 MB free space on it. the other one was for various files that i used to store. worked ok. so if oyu have a 2GB disk you could divide it into say 600 MB for the OS and any other programes and the rest for Games. well actually i htink 400 MB should be enough for system but you never know....