Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
hi all,
I just set up a PII system with multiple
primary partitions (using ranish partition manager) I'm new at this - BTW.first I created a small FAT16 primary partition and loaded DOS 6.22 on it (this is drive C:) Then I created two more primary
partitions (FAT32) on the same disk and formatted them. (there is also a formatted 2nd HD)I would like to load Windows 98 on the 2nd partition of the first disk, but the trouble is that when I boot, there is only drive A: & C:, (no recogition of any other drive)
Any help from more experienced users would really be appreciated
Thanks
You will need to set the second partition active. And maybe unhide it. I use Partition Magic instead of Ranish. To install a new OS I set it active and unhidden. All the other partitions are set hidden. This is so all the OS's think it is on a fresh 'C' partition.
Actually I think you have a problem. Your second hard drive should be visible unless it is in a non recognizeable format. You should disconnect it when installing the OS on the first drive.
After installing all the OS's you may need a boot manager, which may be required to be installed in another primary partition.
0 
What is the point of setting up 622/FAT16? 98 is built on DOS7.1, so unless you have a specific purpose in mind, a separate DOS partition is somewhat redundant.
While the bulk of the 98 installation can go elsewhere, it will overwrite the 622 bootfiles with its own. 95 & 98 have a kind of limited boot manager built-in that allows you to select 'previous version of MS-DOS' (FAT16 only) at startup
For anything much more complex you may require a boot manager as suggested, although if you subsequently install XP or Win2K, those have their own boot managers as well.
As mentioned, something is wrong if 98 cannot recognize the additional (supposed) FAT32 partitions
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
"I would like to load Windows 98 on the 2nd partition of the first disk, but the trouble is that when I boot, there is only drive A: & C:, (no recogition of any other drive)"
This is because you're booting with the FAT16 "C" drive, which can't "see" FAT32 partitions. Thus you'll only get A & C.
0
Hey Dan Penny - good reading between the lines.
For sure, 622 will not and cannot be aware of FAT32.
When setting up a multiboot system, it's helpful indeed to understand the differences & limitations of the various OS's
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
jboy - if you want clean separate boots, or different versions of 'DOS'. I've had DOS, Win98, & Linux partitions, have 3 Win98 partitions - working, minimal, backup, all independently bootable. If the working is damaged, I clone the backup.
Dan Penny - didn't catch that. My standard floppy boot is Win98.
Actually for a long time, I had all Drive C's FAT16 2GB, am retiring the idea as the last Win3.1 production machine is being retired in order to utilize broadband internet more effectively.
0
"jboy - if you want clean separate boots, or different versions of 'DOS'."
Hey Fred - sorry, that sentence seems to be missing something, I'm not sure what you mean.
There's nothing wrong with having 622 & 98 setup on the same system - I just wonder if it's necessary. Much depends on the OP's ultimate purpose, which has been left largely to our imaginations.
I'd have to agree with Dan's interpretation, and that arbat is booting to 622 from the HDD - although that's not obvious from the post - which would explain the 'lost' partition
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
jboy -
Many people are now using the Win9x/DOS7.1 as the DOS boot. I have DOS software that will not run correctly under that version, it requires DOS5.xx or DOS6.xx.
0
Yeah, ok - that's what I was getting at by 'a specific purpose' - generally speaking, most software will run just fine under 7x, so (as always) much depends on the user's intentions.
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
jboy
"95 & 98 have a kind of limited boot manager built-in that allows you to select 'previous version of MS-DOS' (FAT16 only) at startup"
Will it actuallu run the earlier OS?
TIA
M2
0
Oh sure, built into IO.SYS - I still have a machine setup like that, with 95A/622&WfW. It was Micro$oft's way of easing reluctant users into the 'new order' by allowing a boot choice. Of course it can only work with FAT16 partitions though.
It's a bit of sleight of hand - the 622 files are renamed command.dos, msdos.dos, autoexec.dos & config.dos when running Win9x. Boot to the previous DOS version and those are restored - on the fly - and their Windows equivalents are renamed with .W40 extension.
Presto Changeo(!)
Like any situation with more than one OS on the same partition, you have be careful what you do, especially when using the older OS - monkeying around can mess up LFNs, for instance
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
.. also, it may be a little dicier with Win95 OSR2, according to this page - can't say as I've ever tried it. Haven't heard of any issues under 98, but it's rare to see that installed on FAT16 anyways.
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
jboy,
Good info & good observations.
I'm too dyslexic to have too many moving parts.
I've got a couple "mobile racks" and just swap drives.
We learnined this the hard way after running quite a few installations of w9x Japanese AND English.
And having international adventures of epic proportions.
I wonder how m$ expects to "ease" users into the next jauggernaut, with NO DOS and no DOS emulation.
That's if it ever gets off the drawing board.
And why would users hassle it.
Just get a Mac and get on with their life.
***
Almost on the same topic, I guess that w2k ;oads bootsect.dos into memory as if it had been read from the first 512 of the HD.M2
0
ARbat, did you understand all of the above?
Boot with a 98 bootdisk, choose cdrom support. Once booted, change to the cd drive (with the 98 cd in the drive) and type SETUP. If it asks if you want to upgrade your O/S, tell it no. (You want to save it.) When it asks to install to c:\windows, tell it d:\windows. This should start the 98 installation.
You may still need some type of boot manager, but that shouldn't be too hard to obtain. There are many on the net.
0
Thanks to everyone for all the input!
The problem was solved when I changed
the active partition with RPM to the first FAT32 partition, then re-booted with the Win98 startup disk. Suddenly I had C,D,E,F, & G (D being the second HD and G the cd drive)So it was easy to load windows onto E drive.
I wanted the second HD connected at this point so that I wouldn't experience drive letter shifting "after" installing windows.Also in answer to jboy's question, the reason
for keeping DOS separate is because I have some old DOS software that I haven't used in years and I wanted to load it up again ... since it's damn good software and doesn't take up much memory at all!!!Thanks again for all your help!
0
That's good. Some users are unaware of the DOS 'backbone' in the Win9x/ME series and feel they must install DOS "too". As mentioned, I maintain a dual boot machine - not so much for compatibility, but because the 622 memory footprint is smaller than that of its 9x counterpart.
Sure - there are many ways to accomplish more or less the same thing. A boot manager may not be needed, but that too is an option.
M2 - eh - I think the hard part's already been done. Win95 was the first big transition from the 'old way' of doing things - afaik, that method of dual booting is somewhat unique.
Recently my stepdad acquired a modern machine: 3GHz, XP Media Center (2005) - with no floppy drive. He never used the DOS prompt in his old 98FE machine, he sure won't use the emulation in this one either, so, nothing really for him to miss.
MACs may be superior - maybe one day I'll get a decent one (I have a few antique 'toy' models) but it's hard to want to start the learning curve all over again.
Other than doing maintenance or upgrades on XP machines for friends and family, my exposure to the XP/NT way of doing things is pretty limited as well.
I'm not insensitive, I just don't care.
0
Right jboy, I agree that not many people are
aware of DOS, but that's where the PC legacy all began. My first experience using a PC was learning how to load DOS (in that case DR DOS) and then some DOS software. That was years before windows ever came out.However, windows sure did take over once the
ball got rolling.My experience with XP is also quite limited,
although, as usual, I know I'll be using it more and more as time goes on, since it represents the new phase in personal computing.But I did just download my first copy of
LINUX the other day (Knoppix 3.7)... tried it once so far and it seems pretty cool ...
I look forward to learning more about LINUX
and different releases ... since I like
the idea of FREE operating systemsAlso hope to try SOLARIS soon.
Cheers
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
