While this forum is given over to storing betas, and with it, abandonware, the early 1990s were given over to reducing the mindless guff out of software. So the idea was simply to remove the goodies and "toss" the rest. I'm afraid that Norton Desktop for Windows and Becker Tools, a distribution that comes on 8 and 2 1440s, were thinned out to just 1 diskette. The five separate versions of civilisation comes on 10 1440s, is thinned down to three. And so on.
DOS and Windows are no different. Indeed, the Windows Reskit 3.1 actually tells you how to do just this for Windows.
So i have been reveiwing this as part of the work to WinNT 3.5/4 sp pack etc. Every little success helps.
MS-DOS 6.30
This started life as an extension of the OLDDOS files on the Windows 9x cdrom, but it turns out if you make a full-blown version of DOS that does not check versions (or check > 5.00, like PCDOS), then you can copy the files that are needed from this install. MSDOS was then deconstructed into a number of separate applications: access, dblspace, dosshell, drvspace, memmaker, msav, msbackup, msdrivers, network, qbasic, mstools (defrag, etc) and msdos5.
Most of this is labeled 'additional tools' by microsoft, and is common across the versions, so we remove it out of the DOS.
We have thinned DOS down to a single diskette, and a second 'utilities' diskette, being access, dosshell, extract, gwbasic, manager, msd 2.12, qbasic, and a few toys from the 95OPK (mkpath, tee, ync).
So you just run 'install' from each diskette, and it unpacks the files to c:\dos and c:\msdos.
This is largely complete, and will replace the 6.30 version on os2fan2.com
Windows 3.11.9696
The installation of a full set of Windows takes quite a deal of time, because the actual directory is quite large. The idea is to thin the install out to just about marginal, and then offer a driver set that uses a minimal number of files (like the printer process). A good deal of the windows 3.1 video drivers are just part of the install (fonts), and we can do just nicely without. Also the layout would be easier to make multi-language, because you just have to replace the font-diskette.
Most of the ancient network drivers will be paired off, but to run the cdrom, you need to install the microsoft network thing, so we will keep this.
The utilities will be installed by way of a batch file, and the apps added to the shell with windde. This is how norton utilities does it, and how we plan to do it here.
MS-DOS 7.10.2400
This is a new version, designed to be installed into Windows 95/98 etc. Instead of just replacing the DOS there, we plan a multi-boot menu, where you can select DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, etc, even to the extent of getting the correct boot logo. A good deal of work has been done on the upgrade, and since we plan it to be an upgrade/addition to 6.30, the files additional to 6.30 or the MS-DOS addons (dosshell etc), we plan to remove this stuff from 7.10.
The fun thing is that if you have a drive formated fat32, MS-DOS 7.10 and Windows 3.1 will see it, but Windows 95 doesn't.
Windows 9x disk
This is a combo 95/98/ME setup, keeping as close to the original structure as possible. It includes the three packages above too.
Windows 3.51 / Windows 4.00
The work required here is to write a number of scripts that will add in the necessary files, and to update the registry. In essence, you will have a registry script, that looks like a registry with a few extra commands tossed in. There would be a rexx script that chugs through it, though.
All those years ago.
Re: All those years ago.
Conceitedly I wish that the same process could apply to the Xenix dumps I have (Also tried, not to 100% success yet) on my system (Both SCO and Microsoft variants) as keeping track of the floppies is a mindless jumble of a task even if I only did it twice now, and with that not have been able to as of yet test all of the dumps from the various places including BA in which I have found them. 15 I know of for both 286 and 8086 (Microsoft; v2.1.3) and 10 for 386 (SCO; v2.3.2) but not including 3.3.4q as an upgrade or the general 2.3.0d SDK set that is floating around.
Since the main problems have been finding an emulator that is tolerable to such old systems until now with PCem in its current state (Not saying it all works!), I will comment fully regarding what I can about your post. I use MS-DOS 5.22 as a base for Windows 3.1 (Or 3.11 upgrades) and just out of proof for keeping a copy that is able to boot use the newer 6.30 line for Windows 95 rtm installations, but that's just in a virtual sense. My IBM PS/2 Model 30 is still kicking, but the 30MB HDD died in 2008 and I have not been able to replace it as the internet offers a $330 price tag for a 30MB disk, so I can use the 3 1/2" internal and the 5 1/4" (External power) to boot, and either to store or load additional software though it ran 3.30a when the disk did work. As a 286, I am limited in that sense.
I for one appreciate the effort to consolidate all of the variants in a way that can still be used for that purpose. I have always been interested in OS/2, but haven't yet tried to get it working. Due to the history I read about Microsoft's arrangement with IBM it suggests the still at the time needed DOS tie-in. Having boot media that can handle both environments would definitely be helpful for many retro enthusiasts.
In time I will try to faithfully get an OS/2 environment up, but for now will just nod and give thanks for the work you and others have no doubt spent trying to provide the ability to boot MS-DOS without so many floppies as was the case at that point in computing history as I know that I for one can benefit from it being available as I can see the application. Is it distributed in any obvious place or has it not been yet?
Also, your curious discovery about the fat32 limitation as far as I know applies to non service releases of Windows 95 without patches, which is the edition I use the 5.x line with. I usually start with 6.x for fat32 capable Windows editions if there is no base or if it is a multi-release upgrade, or have at least in the past. Perhaps this is a reason, though I never knew that 3.x could handle fat32 until now, despite the obvious nature of vxds and the implications of loading xms and the like as well as the natural support that was evoked in later releases of 9x based Windows editions themselves capable of fat32; with support by means of the final base(s) of DOS as provided by Microsoft and then the 3rd party solutions in which predated the advent of direct consumer access to NT products in the post NT 3.5 days just before the clock struck 2000.
Since the main problems have been finding an emulator that is tolerable to such old systems until now with PCem in its current state (Not saying it all works!), I will comment fully regarding what I can about your post. I use MS-DOS 5.22 as a base for Windows 3.1 (Or 3.11 upgrades) and just out of proof for keeping a copy that is able to boot use the newer 6.30 line for Windows 95 rtm installations, but that's just in a virtual sense. My IBM PS/2 Model 30 is still kicking, but the 30MB HDD died in 2008 and I have not been able to replace it as the internet offers a $330 price tag for a 30MB disk, so I can use the 3 1/2" internal and the 5 1/4" (External power) to boot, and either to store or load additional software though it ran 3.30a when the disk did work. As a 286, I am limited in that sense.
I for one appreciate the effort to consolidate all of the variants in a way that can still be used for that purpose. I have always been interested in OS/2, but haven't yet tried to get it working. Due to the history I read about Microsoft's arrangement with IBM it suggests the still at the time needed DOS tie-in. Having boot media that can handle both environments would definitely be helpful for many retro enthusiasts.
In time I will try to faithfully get an OS/2 environment up, but for now will just nod and give thanks for the work you and others have no doubt spent trying to provide the ability to boot MS-DOS without so many floppies as was the case at that point in computing history as I know that I for one can benefit from it being available as I can see the application. Is it distributed in any obvious place or has it not been yet?
Also, your curious discovery about the fat32 limitation as far as I know applies to non service releases of Windows 95 without patches, which is the edition I use the 5.x line with. I usually start with 6.x for fat32 capable Windows editions if there is no base or if it is a multi-release upgrade, or have at least in the past. Perhaps this is a reason, though I never knew that 3.x could handle fat32 until now, despite the obvious nature of vxds and the implications of loading xms and the like as well as the natural support that was evoked in later releases of 9x based Windows editions themselves capable of fat32; with support by means of the final base(s) of DOS as provided by Microsoft and then the 3rd party solutions in which predated the advent of direct consumer access to NT products in the post NT 3.5 days just before the clock struck 2000.
-
os2fan2
- Donator
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
- Location: Brisbane, Queensland
- Contact:
Re: All those years ago.
I am fairly familiar with these operating systems, the actual project is an extension of the expanded 'OLDMSDOS' project. The current process is to build obviously non MS-DOS versions that are MS-DOS, and then fiddle around with these in the context of the OS. One should recall that this was in the time of the antitrust case, and there were all sorts of things in the press about running windows 95 under non-msdos 7 etc.
OSR1 to OSR5 are the five Win9x releases (95, osr2, 98fe, 98se, me). The DOS versions are 7.00, 7.10, 8.00. The DOS in OSR3 and OSR4 are identical, and the OSR2 is nearly identical to OSR3. The bulk of the utilities in 7.00 are identical to 7.10, when the version change is made. All 7.xx support the base of LFN, but you need an external proggie to handle LFN. Fat32 comes with 7.10 OSR2+, and 8,00 is largely positioned as a Windows loader and application.
The purpose of hand-hacked software is so you can measure how the stuff interacts with the new OS. None the same, it's also an extension of the OLDMSDOS thing (ie 6.22 files for Windows 95x etc). MS-DOS 6.30 is a patched version of MS-DOS 6.22, is used in the experiments. It also tells us if Windows recognises this version too. The actual DOS version is thinned out to a two diskette layout, packed with SZDD. Unlike the 6.22 layout, expand -r *.* c:\msdos actually will put the full name there, ie move.exe, rather than move.ex_.
I formatted the disk with 6.30, and installed that version. Then i installed Windows 95. After that, I replace the DOS in 95 with a different dos version msdos 7.10.2400, in the msdos7\command directory. I then update msdos.sys to point WinBootDir to c:\msdos7. WinDir stays the same at this point.
I then create an extended partition with a fat16 D: and a fat32 E:. DOS71 can see all three, but Windows 95 can not see these. Nor do the DOS boxes work, unless you load dencorso's dos700.sys file in config.sys. Then the DOS box works again, but you can't see E: from DOS in winoldap either.
We use tihiy's modified io.sys, along logosys.logotypes.se's doslogo.sys, modified to load logos from the \boot directory. We load different logos for different modes (ie msdos 7.10 for plain dos, win95 for windows 95, win98se for win98se). It loads under plain DOS as well, so we have an msdos logo here.
The plan is to multiboot 6.30, 7.10, and OSR1 and OSR4 in the same box, without using 'external' boot managers. IE the 7.10 boot manager and the IO.sys multiboot will handle all of this stuff!
OSR1 to OSR5 are the five Win9x releases (95, osr2, 98fe, 98se, me). The DOS versions are 7.00, 7.10, 8.00. The DOS in OSR3 and OSR4 are identical, and the OSR2 is nearly identical to OSR3. The bulk of the utilities in 7.00 are identical to 7.10, when the version change is made. All 7.xx support the base of LFN, but you need an external proggie to handle LFN. Fat32 comes with 7.10 OSR2+, and 8,00 is largely positioned as a Windows loader and application.
The purpose of hand-hacked software is so you can measure how the stuff interacts with the new OS. None the same, it's also an extension of the OLDMSDOS thing (ie 6.22 files for Windows 95x etc). MS-DOS 6.30 is a patched version of MS-DOS 6.22, is used in the experiments. It also tells us if Windows recognises this version too. The actual DOS version is thinned out to a two diskette layout, packed with SZDD. Unlike the 6.22 layout, expand -r *.* c:\msdos actually will put the full name there, ie move.exe, rather than move.ex_.
I formatted the disk with 6.30, and installed that version. Then i installed Windows 95. After that, I replace the DOS in 95 with a different dos version msdos 7.10.2400, in the msdos7\command directory. I then update msdos.sys to point WinBootDir to c:\msdos7. WinDir stays the same at this point.
I then create an extended partition with a fat16 D: and a fat32 E:. DOS71 can see all three, but Windows 95 can not see these. Nor do the DOS boxes work, unless you load dencorso's dos700.sys file in config.sys. Then the DOS box works again, but you can't see E: from DOS in winoldap either.
We use tihiy's modified io.sys, along logosys.logotypes.se's doslogo.sys, modified to load logos from the \boot directory. We load different logos for different modes (ie msdos 7.10 for plain dos, win95 for windows 95, win98se for win98se). It loads under plain DOS as well, so we have an msdos logo here.
The plan is to multiboot 6.30, 7.10, and OSR1 and OSR4 in the same box, without using 'external' boot managers. IE the 7.10 boot manager and the IO.sys multiboot will handle all of this stuff!