MSDOS 6.22 is limited to 2 gb hard drive partition. Better to create this>partition first, if you plan to have multiple partitions on your Hard Drive.
Yes I realize that :) not sure if I'm going to install MS-DOS 6.22 or windows>95.
The other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space
if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breaking
up a drive that the OS could probably handle as-is into 4 or 5 partitions
to cut back on wasted space.
FAT can handle 2 gigabyte partitions as stated, but FAT 32 can handle
2 Terrabytes. Win 98 comes with DOS 7.1 usually but you can use
DOS 6.22 with it if you prefer by installing 6.22 first and then installing Win 98 and telling it which version of DOS to boot with.
> > if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breakingThe other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space
I can remember back in the days taking a large drive and partitioning it>into several "drives" of ~120MB. ;)
FAT can handle 2 gigabyte partitions as stated, but FAT 32 can handle> I think I still have a windows 98 CD, I think I'll give that a try.
2 Terrabytes. Win 98 comes with DOS 7.1 usually but you can use
DOS 6.22 with it if you prefer by installing 6.22 first and then
installing Win 98 and telling it which version of DOS to boot with.
That's actually a great idea, I am going to install MSDOS 6.22 soon,
Maybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a huge storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than about 32 gig. I recall dividing a 160 gig drive into 5 drives.
But for real multitasking with real MSDOS, Win 3.1 with a Windowed MSDOS over it is the best for me. My exemple was: you are playing Zork over MSDOS and you want to takes notes with Notepad at the same time. Desqview
is really a cool thing but eating all the memory.
For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.
Maybe. I will check this out. This is interesting for me. I have both installed in some hard drives. DESQView v.1.x version dont have a GUI, bu
version DESQView X 1.x and DESQView X 2.x have one. If I remember DESQVie
1.xx have just a system menu wich remains hidden if not used.
Interesting.. I used a version of DESQView without a GUI; I didn't realize they made one that had a GUI.
I can remember back in the days taking a large drive and partitioning it>into several "drives" of ~120MB. ;)
Maybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a
huge storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than
about 32 gig. I recall dividing a 160 gig drive into 5 drives.
"Normal" DESQView (no "X"), which most people are most familiar with, didn't have a GUI.
DESQView-X (the X standing for, IIRC, "X window") did indeed have a GUI. If you knew what you were doing, you could set up an application on a DV-X box and be able to run it remotely on a linux box. I never could get the reverse to work, though.
If you re-read his post, he is talking about DESQView-X.
For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than
Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.
You are correct, there was no competition really. Only thing Windows 3.x wa better at was running Windows applications that wouldn't run under DOS. OTOH any DOS programs that wouldn't run with QEMM/DV were very unlikely to run under Win 3.x, either.
> > storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than about 32 giMaybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a huge
It all depended on the size of the files you stored - with 4k clusters, if yo>ad a ton of files smaller than 4K, each one would occupy 1 4k cluster on the
Smaller partitions meant smaller cluster sizes and more efficient storage of>ll files.
"Normal" DESQView (no "X"), which most people are most familiar with, didn't have a GUI.
DESQView-X (the X standing for, IIRC, "X window") did indeed have a GUI. If you knew what you were doing, you could set up an application on a DV-
box and be able to run it remotely on a linux box. I never could get the
reverse to work, though.
If you re-read his post, he is talking about DESQView-X.
Ah.. Yeah, I wasn't aware of the existence of DESQView-X.
For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than
Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.
You are correct, there was no competition really. Only thing Windows 3.x w
better at was running Windows applications that wouldn't run under DOS. OTO
any DOS programs that wouldn't run with QEMM/DV were very unlikely to run under Win 3.x, either.
Bending the rules a bit, OS/2 rocked at running DOS programs. I ran my BBS on it and ran OS/2 at work to support Windows desktops and Novell servers. I coul
have multiple DOS windows open, even VDMs with separate versions of DOS...
>> huge storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less thanMaybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a
Yes. This would have been on a DOS machine that didn't run Windows and>wasn't 32-bit. IIRC, it was when DOS (under Windows) became 32-bit that
I had trouble with was PC-Write and, for that matter, Wordperfect 5 for
phigan wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Odd, I don't remember having an issue with WordPerfect 5.1 and DV, but maybe I just didn't use them together... which is hard to imagine ;). Maybe one day I'll be curious enough to try this.
I had trouble with was PC-Write and, for that matter, Wordperfect 5 for
Odd, I don't remember having an issue with WordPerfect 5.1 and DV, but maybe just didn't use them together... which is hard to imagine ;). Maybe one day I'll be curious enough to try this.
| Sysop: | Rixter |
|---|---|
| Location: | Madison,NC |
| Users: | 611 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 154:44:26 |
| Calls: | 3,960 |
| Files: | 89,308 |
| Messages: | 523,432 |