Windows 3.1 and Windows 95

[logowriter]

I have an old Dell 486 with Windows 95(b I think) installed. It still has the options "boot to previous version of DOS" (my old version of DOS is 6.0) in the boot menu, which is activated every startup cycle thanks to a TweakUI setting, and my question is: Can I install Windows 3.1 on the "old version..." boot and use it like I would any other normal installation of Windows 3.1?

I'm thinking that I probably can. I have two hard disks with FAT16 (or maybe earlier, I just know it's not FAT32). Also the machine used to have Windows 3.1 before a few unfortunate file deletions sent it packing; and a CD-ROM for windows 95 meant I wouldn't bother re-installing 3.1 (also the disks I had didn't work at the time, they do now because it was looking for a certain driver that was corrupt, and I changed my hardware settings to a compatible brand with a non-corrupt driver on the disk)

The old version of DOS boots just fine, and I can use it with no problem. I'm just not sure if Windows 3.1 (installed in a different directory, of course) would upset my current version of Windows.

[AlaricD]

There shouldn't be any problem at all, if you're not using FAT32 (and I've never experienced a problem with Windows 3.1 installed on a FAT32 partition, although the 'experts' with their certifications say you shouldn't. Maybe they're right for once.)

You will want to make sure that Windows 3.1 is using a permanent swap file, rather than a temporary swap file, for in Win9x the swap file is named WIN386.SWP, which is the same name given by 3.x to the temporary swap file. Choosing to use a permanent swap file in Win3.x gives you a 386SPART.PAR.

There is a FAT earlier than FAT16, which is FAT12. FAT12 is still used today on floppy diskettes (which is why FAT12 is earlier, we used floppies before the PC/XT took away the cassette tape and gave us hard disks) and on partitions smaller than about 15.96 binary megabytes.

[Eeyore]

and I've never experienced a problem with Windows 3.1 installed on a FAT32 partition

From my experience, you can only run Windows 3.1 on DOS 6.22 down or a Windows 95a operating system. Since none of those can access a FAT32, I don't see how you could run Windows 3.1 on a FAT32 partition.

logowriter, depending on how much memory you have and what you intend to use this WINDOWS 3.1 for, you might want to try Running Windows 3.x on a RAMDISK. You'll be amazed by the speed.

------------------
My
Two Cents
Dennis
Visit Politalk

[AlaricD]

Originally posted by Eeyore

From my experience, you can only run Windows 3.1 on DOS 6.22 down or a Windows 95a operating system. Since none of those can access a FAT32, I don't see how you could run Windows 3.1 on a FAT32 partition.

Simple. Boot to Command Prompt Only in Win95 OSR2, and start Windows 3.1. You have access to FAT32 by virtue of having used the OSR2 IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS. However, you do have to patch IO.SYS-- Microsoft put code in IO.SYS that detects an attempt to start Windows 3.1, which gives you the message

You started your computer with a version of MS-DOS incompatible with this
version of Windows. Insert a Startup diskette matching this version of
Windows and then restart.
The system has been halted. Press Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart your computer.

So, it is simple, but it's not so simple. Yes, it would be easier to do this on a Win95 (or possibly a Win95A) system than on a Win95B system (lacking Win95A I can't check the IO.SYS for Microsoft's little trap, and it's possible the IO.SYS installed on a non-FAT32 volume by Win95B lacks the trap), but yes, Windows 3.1 will work on a FAT32 volume.

I also noticed this time that my attempt to make the swap file in Windows 3.1 a permanent one failed, as 386ENH.CPL warned me that the drive was not an Int13h drive. (This could have been due to the size of the drive, or the BIOS drive type, or because I didn't load the Windows 3.x version of IFSHLP.SYS.) So, I stayed with a temporary swap file, which was no great inconvenience as my Win9x swapfile is mapped to another drive.

[Eeyore]

you do have to patch IO.SYS--

Ahh! So there is some trickery involved.

Is this editing the IO.SYS? Or is is a download patch or different IO.SYS?

------------------
My
Two Cents
Dennis
Visit Politalk

[AlaricD]

Basically it's editing the IO.SYS, and changing 3 bytes.

Here are the three differing bytes:

alaricd@domain:~ (9)$ cmp -l unpatch.sys patched.sys
78275 4 3
78294 164 220
78295 356 220
alaricd@domain:~ (10)$

But now this is more easily done than ever, just look for "OSR2FIX"...

[Vernon Frazee]

Here's a link:

http://www.smspower.org/maxim/16bit/osr2fix.htm