DOS ain't dead

> My
> current FAT32 partition was no problem, but considering 30 years of IBM PC
> clones, anything could go wrong.

I'll have to do a bit more research on this then

> Keep in mind that I too always said "2 GB is plenty", and it is, but at the
> same time, it's easy to fill up. I've had this current FAT32 partition (3.5
> GB, 4 kb clusters) for less than a month, and I've already crammed
> (apparently) "948 MB" on it!

Well the hard disk I'll be installing on will have plenty of space so I could set up 2 or 3 2GB partitions with a copy of DOS/FreeDOS in each. But again I'll need to try and clarify the FAT32 booting issue.

> > (2) if dual/triple booting do either or both of the two DOSes have to
> > reside in the first partition on a hard drive or can they be installed
> > following, say, a Windows XP partition (as described here:
> > http://thpc.info/dual/win7/tripleboot_win7+xp+ms-dos710_on_win7.html)?
>
> I'm fairly (?) certain that MS-DOS indeed needs to be the first partition
> and start at sector 0. But I could be wrong, maybe it's just IO.SYS has to
> be on the first two. Dunno, but FreeDOS certainly has no problems residing
> anywhere (barring exotic BIOS bugs).

Just had another look at that article - "Bootup from a Win98SE boot floppy or 98SE MS-DOS boot CD/Flash drive. Type A:\SYS C: at the Prompt and press Enter
- this creates a DOS boot sector on the FAT32 partition and installs a very basic MS-DOS 7.10"

so you are correct about the need for some programs on the first partition, although the remainder can be in its own partition.

> > (3) if there were a particular program available in FreeDOS, but not in
> > MS-DOS, could it be installed in/copied to MS-DOS and be used there?
>
> Yes. Vice versa also works in (approximately) 90% of cases, maybe more
> (trying to be honest and realistic here).

That's good.

> > (4) basic question this - I know MS-DOS 7.1 used portions of 16-bit code
> > for backwards compatibility but is it, and FreeDOS, essentially a 32-bit
> > OS?
>
> No, not at all. But don't worry, it won't affect anything badly. It's still
> "fast"!
>
> > In case I didn't make it clear in my earlier post, this investigation of
> > DOS in the 21st centrury is all about 'retro play' i.e it's nothing to
> do
> > with real work.
>
> Good, the best kind!

Yes, fun, fun, fun!

> > I like programming using some of the old Borland tools,
> > creating DOS real mode apps, which run fine in DOSBox or an XP NTVDM, but
> I
> > like the idea of messing around with autoexec.bat and config.sys again -
> as
> > I said, just play/hobby/interest. Of course, I might use MS-DOS 7.1 and
> > FreeDOS!
>
> Feel free to try it! At worst you waste a few hours of time. Just don't
> pull all your hair out! It's not perfect by any means, but it works pretty
> good, all things considered!

Yes, I've come round to that way of thinking.

Thanks

---
Paul
Melbourne, Australia

Is there a reason why you keep changing the name to something that expresses contempt/disdain?

---
mTCP - TCP/IP apps for vintage DOS machines!
http://www.brutman.com/mTCP

> > (4) basic question this - I know MS-DOS 7.1 used portions of 16-bit code
> > for backwards compatibility but is it, and FreeDOS, essentially a 32-bit
> OS?
>
> NO. 100% 16-bit real mode OS. There are FreeDOS kernels for 80386, using
> some new features like 32-bit registers, but still run 100% in 16-bit real
> mode. No support for 32-bit apps in the kernel, no 4 GiB of RAM.

Thanks for clarifying that.

> > In case I didn't make it clear in my earlier post, this investigation of
> > DOS in the 21st centrury is all about 'retro play' i.e it's nothing to
> do
> > with real work.
>
> Why ?

See my reply to Rugxulo - fun, fun, fun.
>
> > I like programming using some of the old Borland
>
> Check out FreePASCAL, FreeBASIC, FASM, CC386 and WATTCOM

I've got FreePASCAL. Don't like BASIC as a language. I've got TASM, Borland's assembler. I've also got C and C++ compilers. Plenty of tools in the toolbox

---
Paul
Melbourne, Australia