Thank you riider and T-R-A for your answers.......

October 28, 2020 at 19:35:09
Specs: Windows 2000 Pro SP4, Pentium III
Okay riider....open source GAG Boot Mgr is a good Boot Manager to use...and T-R-A replace dead BIOS battery okay understood...its cheap and not difficult instructions on web.....How about my "small 12 GB internal HD " Is 12 GB large enough to swallow 5 operating systems with mostly downloaded software from the internet ? I understand 1 windows OS scatters data all over the internal hard drive ...I am planning on installing 3 different Windows OSes on my old IBM ThinkPad laptop....isnt that pure chaos on my 12 GB hard drive ? and migraine headaches in the future ?

See More: Thank you riider and T-R-A for your answers.......


#1
October 29, 2020 at 02:36:04
"Is 12 GB large enough to swallow 5 operating systems with mostly downloaded software from the internet ?"

I'm assuming you refer to your previous post...

If you use a partition manager as riider suggested, that should take care of keeping Windows "in-check" from scattering files across the drive. You can find out the typical Windows installation sizes online at various sites, but if you stick to earlier versions, 12GB should be ok. (12/5 = 2.4GB each). Not certain of OS2 or whatever version of linux you choose.

And one more thing...there is no "true" version of MS-DOS beyond 6.22 (6.23 in some cases). DOS 7.1 is just the underpinnings ripped away from Windows 98. Not sure how Win3.1 will work with it, but you'll need some flavor of DOS first for Windows 3.x to "ride on".

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#2
October 29, 2020 at 07:27:36
A 12GB HDD is small by modern standards but back in the days of DOS & Win3.x, it was unheard of. No one could even imagine needing that much storage capacity in those days. How much space you need per OS will depend on which ones you choose. Be aware that you might run into hardware or driver problems. Older OS + newer hardware can spell trouble. Too much RAM can also be a problem. Remember, Bill Gates once said, "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need".

T-R-A brought up some good points. DOS 7.1 is an unofficial non-Microsoft version, not a "true" DOS version. As he said, it was ripped from Win9.x. I haven't played with Win3.x in a lot of years & don't know if it will work with 7.1 or if you'll need 6.22. See the instructions here:
https://winworldpc.com/product/ms-d...

As for his "ride on" comment...there's always been some debate on whether Win 3.x was an actual operating system or just a means to convert DOS to a graphical user interface (GUI). It's not a standalone OS, it has to ride on DOS. Win9x rolled it all into one package but it was still a GUI riding on a DOS base.

message edited by riider


Reply ↓  Report •

#3
October 29, 2020 at 14:52:11
"... some debate on whether Win 3.x was an actual operating system or just a means to convert DOS to a graphical user interface (GUI).

Win9x rolled it all into one package but it was still a GUI riding on a DOS base."

Agreed. Win3.x (and anything prior) had to have a DOS subsystem installed first. As with DRI's GEM and Geoworks (which was superior to Win3.x IMHO), it allows things to be done only when some style of DOS is present.

Win9x was largely a "dressed-up" version of Win3.x which included a bit more 32-bit code, but also ran on top of a (heavily disguised) base operating system. Any reference to a 7.x version of MS-DOS (not PC-DOS, which IBM continued to develop until PC-DOS 2000/7.1) is just the underbelly of Win9x.

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •
Related Solutions


Ask Question