Does anyone know where i can get a windows 3.1 boot disk?

www.bootdisk.com

To add to kkk's response, you will need a bootdisk for the version of DOS you have installed in that machine. Win 3.1 is a graphic user interface...not an operating system. DOS is the OS.

it depends on what you want to do with the bootdisk because it if your startup files (autoexec.bat, config.sys etc) need to be fixed then anyold bootdisk will do but bootdisk.com is an excellent place to get one, and actually windows 3.1 doesn't use a bootdisk since its not an operating system, and its a pain in the a** if it crashes since there is no safe mode, now windows 95 isn't an operating system either but its intergrated with its dos unlike windows 3.1 so it looks like its an operating system but its realy not infact if your install the win95 dos from like a bootdisk (type sys c:) then edit the msdos.sys file to change the line loadgui=1 to loadgui=0 then install win3.1 you get the same splash screen but you run 3.1 instead but you have to add win to the autoexec.bat file. anyways get a 95 bootdisk if you need to edit start files but if its more serouis then get one that matches your dos

First, there is no "Win95 bootable floppy", as Win95 usually can't fit on a floopy disk. Only DOS can.

Second, although there is no "normal Win3.1 bootable floppy", there is "Mini-Win3.1 bootable floopy", which is actually a DOS + Mini-Win3.x boot disk.

Wengier is right 95 must be on the hard drive in order for it to run. the intergrated dos from win95 is whats on the bootdisk

If what you want is a bootdisk that will get you strait into Windows 3.1, and you installed your version over Dos 6.22, then try my bootdisk. It is not per say a Win 3.1 bootdisk as there is no such thing, but it is the next best thing. It will not however support CD-ROM (i should work on that!), but the following link on my page will lead you to a Dos 6.22 bootdisk that does (thanks Putergeek)!

Anyway, just remember you are really running a GUI on top of Dos...

HTH

Lightsdpeed.

dos 6.22 boot disk is quite out of date anyway(remember that now it's the age of FAT32 and large hard disks). Here you can get DOS 7.10 + Windows 3.11 boot disk, with full FAT32 drives, CD-ROM and LFN(Long File Names) support:

http://newdos.yginfo.net/msdos71.htm

Yes Wengier, but you have to remember that most people here are running Win 3.1 on an original installation on an older system, not on a newer system running the 3xpatch like yourself. Any bootdisk using a Dos version newer than 6.22 will be useless to them. Unless it was for making changes in Dos, they'd get an "incorrect Dos version" error.

Lightspeed.

Lightspeed,

>>Any bootdisk using a Dos version newer than 6.22 will be useless to them.

You should note that this statement is totally WRONG. MS-DOS 7.0 never needs patching of 3xStart. Only the *original* MS-DOS 7.10 shipped with Win95OSR2/98 needs patching of 3xStart. BUT, please remember that "MS-DOS 7.10 Full Version", the standalone version of MS-DOS 7.10 with installer, which is available on that page, doesn't need any changes at all. It seems that you didn't test it until now. Have you ever read the following thread:

http://www.computing.net/windows31/wwwboard/forum/10728.html

Interesting Wengier (long thread too)! Yes, I believe you when you say this would support LFN and FAT32 large drives. I was just wondering if there wouldn't be a Dos version conflict if i booted with this Dos 7.10 boot disk and tried to enter Windows 3.1 on a machine where i installed Win 3.1 over Dos 6.22. I've seen system where 3.1 was installed over Dos 6.2 and using a Dos 6.22 boot disk i couldn't access Windows, i was getting a "incorrect version of Dos" error. But i'll take your word for it and try a few test. Thank you for the tip.

Lightspeed.

Wengier, For drives upto 2 Gigabytes running Windows 3x MS-DOS 6.22 is still OK. It is only when you start using larger harddrives in newer PC's that your MS-DOS 7.10 with homemade installer (very good it is to!) since Microsoft
never intended it as a standalone version comes into its own, if only for its 'Large Disk Support' (FAT32)A feature that needs to be setup by repartioning your harddrive by FDISK Or there is a Microsoft utility (CVT.EXE) that will convert FAT16 to FAT32 A copy of which is on my Win9x page at PowerLoad.

As for Long File Name(LFN)support, unless you use a third party utility this feature is of little use to the Win3x user.

Where by the way does Lightspeed even say MS-DOS 7.0 needed patching with 3XSTART in his text? Your v7.10 needs no changes since you have already patched it for use (Many thanks)

In most cases sticking with MS-DOS 6.22 on older machines with smaller drives seems to be the better option. I am not saying that it can not be done, becouse it can, only that it is not needed on older systems.

Mick C,

Yes, you are right. On older systems, MS-DOS 6.x or earlier is totally OK.

But about MS-DOS 7.0, Lightspeed said "Any bootdisk using a Dos version newer than 6.22 will be useless to them.", which is apparently not correct, because "newer than 6.22" includes 7.0 and later. Also, on his homepage, he says "3XSTART, patch that lets you run win 3.x with Dos7/FAT32", which is the same mistake, because "Dos7" includes MS-DOS 7.0, MS-DOS 7.10, and even PC-DOS 7.0, PC-DOS 7.10, DR-DOS 7.x, ROM-DOS 7.10, etc. That's why I believe Lightspeed thought that MS-DOS 7.0 need patching, too.

One more thing to add, even if on some older systems, if there are already any Long File Names(LFNs) on the drives, then you must be very very careful when using MS-DOS 6.x or earlier, because MS-DOS 6.x(especially the disk tools included, such as SCANDISK) may mess up the existing LFNs on the drives. Therefore, it's still not very safe to use an older version of DOS in many cases.

I start to remember that when I was using MS-DOS 6.22 about 4~5 YEARS AGO, after running DOS6 DEFRAG and SCANDISK(auto fix), I found that they caused a lot of problems on my hard drive and many LFNs were gone!! Needness to say, it's because DOS6 has very poor LFN support. Also, MS-DOS 6.x has some other bugs, such as the Y2K problem(e.g. the year "2001" of file date becomes "2061" sometimes). On the contrast, none of these problems exists in MS-DOS 7.10.

Wengier, I am sure my friend Lightspeed will amend his DOS version error!

Many if not most Windows 3x users who use MS-DOS 6x and have never used or installed MS-DOS 7.10 will have Long File Names to start with, since the file will have been shortened to its 8.3 filename on transfer to a DOS6x/Win3x Machine.

Sure DEFRAG & SCANDISK will cause problems with LFN's But then again they are 6.22 utilities and you would not expect to find Long File Names on a MS-DOS 6.22 Drive would you? These are things to consider before you upgrade to a newer version anyway!

Wengier, I am sorry if I sound if I do not like your Installable MS-DOS 7.10 becouse I do, I think for new users or on bigger harddrives and a fresh install it is great.

It is only that I feel on older systems with smaller drives with MS-DOS 6x installed already it could cause more problems than it solves.

Mick C,

Now I understand your point and fully agree with you. Thanks for your comments!

Hello Wengier, Mick,

Yes, that was also my point. For people using an older system with a pre existing version of Win 3.1 installed over 6.22, they would probably be better off using a boot disk based on 6.22.

However i think your Dos 7.1 stand alone install file is awsome Wengier. Although LFN, large HD and Fat 32 can all be installed on a Dos 6.22 system, using the correct fixes (that are available on my page), installing Win 3.1 over Dos 7.1 does it all from the get go, which is excellent if you build a system from scratch. I will have to add links on my page to your excellent work!

Lightspeed.