Author Topic: Multiboot machine?  (Read 2869 times)

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Multiboot machine?
« on: 23 January 2006, 18:01 »
Don't know where to post this as it relates to multiple OSes I hope the lounge is alright.

I'm going to my a cheap PC off a freind for
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

cymon

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 354
  • Kudos: 172
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #1 on: 23 January 2006, 18:15 »
Windows 3.1 will ONLY run under MS-DOS, anthing else, it doesn't work.

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #2 on: 23 January 2006, 18:46 »
I've managed to run it under DOSBox which doesn't use MS-DOS before, but it didn't work with DOSEmu even though I did follow the instructions.
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #3 on: 23 January 2006, 18:53 »
windows 98 includes an ms dos and i have heard that people have successfully run windows 3.11 simply by exiting windows 98 to MS DOS and starting windows 3.11 although i have never done this myself. I would suggest that you install the windows 3.11 on a separate fat16 partition, but probably put windows 98 on there first. the reason is, windows 98 will use a fat32 filesystem, but it can read fat16. This means windows 98 will be able to see the win3.11 partition, but not vice versa, and with these old versions of windows they really want to think they are on the first drive, so if you have windows 98 on the first partition, then windows 3.11 on the second one, both will think they are on the first partition (if you get me)

next, you will have problems installing freedos and windows 3.11 onto different partitions, because both will see the other's partitions. also remember that fat16 becomes more inefficient for storing files, the larger the filesystem is, so above a couple of hundred MB there's not a lot of point, hence your FreeDOS (if it is fat16) and win3.11 partitions shouldn't go above that size. My advice for installing windows 3.11 is this: install msdos first, then install windows, then install DR-DOS into the same DOX folder that you put MSDOS into, over the top of it. There are several reasons for this: first DR-DOS is better and has more utilities (and the same ones are better than their MS equivalents in my opinion), including ones written for windows. the windows ones will only get installed if windows is detected by the DR-DOS installer, however you need a DOS on there in the first place to install windows with.

all that's from memory and may be a couple of years out of data, but since it deals with ten year old software this might not be too much of a problem, but anybody feel free to correct me on this.
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

piratePenguin

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,027
  • Kudos: 775
    • http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #4 on: 23 January 2006, 19:55 »
Quote from: Aloone_Jonez

FreeDOS
Windows 3.1
Windows 98
BeOS
Linux - haven't decided yet Ubuntu with XFce, Vector Linux possibly both.
Don't know what else, always I'm open to suggestions.
ReactOS? GNU/Hurd (only if you don't mind all the fucking about and reading, and then the fact that it's kind useless (but cool))? FreeBSD (it wouldn't be a bad idea to give a go at mastering FreeBSD on this box if you have the time, it's a very nice system and has nice documentation)? Haiku (definetly an OS to watch out for in the future, dunno how usable it is ATM)?
Quote

Or would I be better off doing things the other way round and connecting this newly aquired machine when it's running Linux to the Internet and using it as a server for my XP/Linux box? That way I can install a darn good free Linux firewall to keep the bugs away.
If you do that (which I think would be the best idea):
Quote

When I've installed all this stuff how can I connect it to my other machine which dual boots XP and Ubuntu (the latter might change) and use it as a server?
Use a crossover cable (ethernet) if you only wanna connect two machines. I think you'll need two ethernet cards in the crappy machine, one for broadband in and one for connecting up to the other computer (using the crossover cable). Once the crappy machine is online then you'll need to set the default gateway in the other machine to the IP address of the crappy one (the networking wizard will help I think), and you might need to note the addresses of your DNS and set them manually once the gateway is setup. Take a note of Google's IP address, 64.233.187.99, it always helps me when it comes to DNS stuff.

I'm dodgey on the networking stuff, so don't take my word for any of this.
Quote

- I only want to do this with Linux as Windows 98 is far too buggy and I don't want to run anti-virus on it.
Disable the broadband in NIC in the device manager, but then you won't be able to get online on the other box without stealing the broadband cable when Windows 98 is running (but you'd have no firewall anyhow).
« Last Edit: 23 January 2006, 20:47 by piratePenguin »
"What you share with the world is what it keeps of you."
 - Noah And The Whale: Give a little love



a poem by my computer, Macintosh Vigilante
Macintosh amends a damned around the requested typewriter. Macintosh urges a scarce design. Macintosh postulates an autobiography. Macintosh tolls the solo variant. Why does a winter audience delay macintosh? The maker tosses macintosh. Beneath female suffers a double scum. How will a rat cube the heavier cricket? Macintosh calls a method. Can macintosh nest opposite the headache? Macintosh ties the wrong fairy. When can macintosh stem the land gang? Female aborts underneath macintosh. Inside macintosh waffles female. Next to macintosh worries a well.

Lead Head

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,508
  • Kudos: 534
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #5 on: 23 January 2006, 20:36 »
BeOS is pretty cool, Its pretty fast on a 266Mhz CPU, but about after 1Ghz it doesnt seem to get any faster
sig.

mobrien_12

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,138
  • Kudos: 711
    • http://www.geocities.com/mobrien_12
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #6 on: 23 January 2006, 23:02 »
Quote from: cymon
Windows 3.1 will ONLY run under MS-DOS, anthing else, it doesn't work.


DR-DOS/OpenDOS and IBM PC-DOS are fine for Windows 3.1
In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight....

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #7 on: 23 January 2006, 23:15 »
Probably because it was designed for older hardware, MS-DOS was pretty fast on my old 486 and it's not that much faster on my 1800MHz machine, also Neopaint (a MS-DOS graphics program) isn't much faster on my new machine compared to my old p200. If software isn't built to take advantage of new hardware then it won't be much faster when run on it.

piratePenguin,
I'll have a go with ReactOS and I'll try the networking thing once I get everything else working.

Calum,
Why do you recommend installing MS-DOS first?
This isn't possible for me as I can't find the disks, I might have a go with MS-DOS 7.x which comes with Windows 98. DR-DOS also sounds a good idea though, it free (FOSS/as in bear)? Would you recommend it over FreeDOS or should I go for both?
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

mobrien_12

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,138
  • Kudos: 711
    • http://www.geocities.com/mobrien_12
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #8 on: 23 January 2006, 23:43 »
DR-DOS is not free as in speech/OSS.  It is commercial software and still being sold.  However, you can (AFAIK) still download it free of charge for personal use.  Check on your favorite search engine.

A rather nice DOS...
In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight....

worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #9 on: 24 January 2006, 00:08 »
Instead of fucking around with all these other DOSes, why not make your own?  Probably a lot harder than I'm making it sound, but more fun and beneficial to you in the longrun.  Taking apart a free DOS and putting it back together would probably teach you more about computers than an EE program at MIT.

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #10 on: 27 January 2006, 19:14 »
Got the PC now and I'm currently installing Windows 98, next will be Windows 3.1. I want to get the MS OSes over out of the way as I know they don't like to know they have competition.

One thing I've noticed is it's taking fucking ages to detedct and install all the plug and prey stuff, I'm just going to leave to it's own devices amd come back later.


Now I don't know how the hell I'm going to connect this to the Internet, our cable connection is downstairs in the dining room and this PC is upstairs in my bedroom. I don't want to drill hole in walls so I think I'll get one of those USB network hubs that work though the mains cabels or possibly Wi-Fi but it needs to be  :tux: friendly, can anyone suggest anything?
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

H_TeXMeX_H

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,988
  • Kudos: 494
    • http://draconishinobi.50webs.com/
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #11 on: 28 January 2006, 00:37 »
USB based internet is generally NOT Linux friendly ... I figured that out long ago ... but most WiFi cards -- for laptops at least -- are Linux friendly. In my house I just ran an ethernet cable down the stairs ... yeah it looks ghetto with all the tape and everything, but I don't give a fuck ... no one comes to my house anyway ... and if they come and complain I'll just kick their asses out of my house :D ;)

Maybe you can get a WiFi hub that connects via ethernet ... that would be the best option if you don't wanna run cables.

worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #12 on: 28 January 2006, 01:23 »
Actually, since the Wifi transmitter is going to transmit from the downstairs computer, presumably a Win machine, it can be a USB transmitter, although that would be much slower than Wifi.

Your Wifi receiver should be ethernet attached, though.  And inside your house, a homemade boosting antenna wouldn't be a bad idea.  Of course you want to secure your network, so your neighbors don't try to surf on your connection.

For information about cards and other devices and their compatibility with Linux,
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_Tourrilhes/Linux/

H_TeXMeX_H

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,988
  • Kudos: 494
    • http://draconishinobi.50webs.com/
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #13 on: 28 January 2006, 02:13 »
Secure WiFi ???!!! I never heard of that ... all I know is WEP can be cracked in under 5 minutes ;)

worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #14 on: 28 January 2006, 02:44 »
I used to get free DSL because one of my neighbors had a wireless network, and it didn't even require a login.  As much as I appreciated it, I wouldn't suggest anyone configure their network that way.