SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

Running Two OS

Jeffrey - Nov 12, 2003

		Jeffrey		Nov 12, 2003
			I have an old pentium 1 laptop. Just for fun, I'd like to run multiple operating systems on it. Is this possible? I have Win95 on it now. I'd like to install my old Win 3.1 and Win 2.0 (yes, I still have it!) I thought it would be cool to have the option of switching between them. Is it possible to have a choice from the boot up? I have heard about "partioning" the drive, but I don't know anything about it. I am assuming I'd have to put an old DOS program on it as well. But will Win 95 allow me to do this? Maybe even Linux or other OS. Would I have to remove 95 to play around with these options. Keep in mind it is Pentium 1 with 16MB and about a 40 HD.

		it290		Nov 12, 2003
			Yes, you have to create at least 1 partition for each OS you want to run. You can do this with FDISK or with the 'format disk' option in Windows. However, repartitioning your harddrive will destroy your data. There is a tool called Partition Magic that can resize existing partitions/create new ones nondestructiviely, but it costs about $50. There are some freeware ones out there as well, but PMagic is the best and supports the most filesystem types. As for booting multiple OS's, there are a few ways to do it, and newer versions of Windows can boot multiple Windows OS's, however for diverse operating systems there are two programs that are the best; they are both associated with Linux and are called LILO and GRUB. GRUB is a graphical menu/bootloader and LILO is text-based, other than that they are functionally similar. I use GRUB to switch between Linux, XP, and QNX on one of my machines. You should be aware, however, that not all OS's will play nice with each other- certain versions of Windows (can't remember which ones off the top of my head) want to be on the 1st partition of the boot HD. (which reminds me, as a side note: if you're willing to install another HD (external or something) you can switch between two OS's just by installing one on each HD and changing the 'boot' option in the BIOS when you want to switch-not sure if laptops generally have this option though) The best way to install LILO or Grub without actually installing Linux is to use one of the Linux distros that will boot from CD - Knoppix is good, and Gentoo (what I use) also works for this- however, you don't actually want to install Gentoo on that box, take my word for it. Now then, as for actually doing this, I wouldn't really recommend it, assuming you meant that it has only a 40 meg HD...(which seems rather small even for a Pentium 1, I might add.. but 40 gigs is much too large for that time period.. 400 megs maybe?). You might be able to fit 95 and 3.1 on there, but you won't have much room for anything else (although I did read recently that someone created an uber-small version of 95). There are a few Linux distros that will run on there as well, but you won't be able to do much with them (not to mention for Linux to run well you generally need a seperate swap partition). .. QNX would be another option (that actually runs well on slow machines), but it's kind of useless unless your hardware is supported, so check that first if you want to screw around with it. Phew.. sorry for all the parenthesis, elipses and whatnot. It's kind of an in-depth topic and the details vary depending on what OS's you're installing, and some of it is trial and error. I hope that gives you a decent overview, though.

		it290		Nov 12, 2003
			Oh yeah, additionally, Linux with 16 megs of RAM isn't really worth it. You won't really be able to run X with that amount. You might want to try screwing around with Minix or something if you just want to play with the console.

		ratfish		Nov 12, 2003
			If you don't want to set up a boot loader like LILO or GRUB, then I recommend Partition Magic. It's a great utility that has a "wizard" thing for setting up multiple particions for multiple OSes on one drive.

		it290		Nov 12, 2003
			Another point- personally, with that machine, I'd install OS/2 Warp if you can find a copy of it, and run that alongside Win95. It's way cooler than 3.1 or 2.0 (or 95 for that matter).

		it290		Nov 12, 2003
			Does Partition Magic have a bootloader as well? That's cool, I've never screwed around with that option.

		Jeffrey		Nov 12, 2003
			WoW! You're good! Thanks for the advice. I may be wrong about the HD size... I haven't checked it in a while. Maybe it was 80Meg or something. I have Word, etc. on it, so it is probably bigger than I remember. Silly question: Can Win 3.1 or 2.0 be run with in Win95? I mean, could it run as a program or something? Also, let's say I erase the drive and install 3.1. Would it run faster than 95? I thought it would be cool to have a retro system. I like playing around with CE, but I get fustrated because there is almost no software for it. I suspect the same frustration would happen with 3.1, but with a pentium I imagined it would boot/run really fast with modern hardware. Is this a realistic expectation?

ratfish

Nov 12, 2003

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by it290@Nov 12, 2003 @ 08:55 PM



 Does Partition Magic have a bootloader as well? That's cool, I've never screwed around with that option.

I don't think Particion Magic creates a boot loader per se.

I used Partition Magic to partition and format a ex2 portion (and a swap space partition and a small (1MB I think) partition for the Linux bootloader) , which I then loaded Linux on.

After I restarted, the Linux GRUB boot loader took over from there.

I was using Red Hat 8 and WinXP by the way.

It's hard to say if Win 3.1 will run faster than 95 on your computer.

If the HDD is 80 MB, you might want to look into one of those small distros of Linux if that's what you're still interested in, but if you still want to run 2 OSes, I don't know if Win 3.1 will even support another OS on it's logical drive. I'm pretty sure 95 will do okay with just about anything.

Then again, it'll most likely be a trial and error process, have fun!

		mtxblau		Nov 12, 2003
			The problem with dual booting either of those OSes is that neither actually likes each other. Well, that's not completely true. It's just very important to note that you can't run native DOS 5/6 commands, as it will seriously mess up the long file name compatability that Win95 has (remember, Win3.11 has a 8 char max limit). Also remember both need to be on the first partition, so multiple partitions are moot, as are bootloaders (since they essentially use the same files - command.com, autoexec, config.sys, etc). It can be done though. Just check this link out: http://www.niftytools.com/HTML/winwin.htm... Windows 3.11 will by and far run much faster than 95OSR1 and later, just out of my own practical experience. There is a lot less overhead, for starters. I've run both 95 and 3.11 on my P1 laptop (and my 486SX for that matter) and both times reverted to 3.11 (nostalgia, I guess). As far as Linux is concerned, all you would get is the smallest distro, non-gui, hardly worth it considering the amount of energy vs. the actual benefit. But if it's for experimentation, it's probably a great learning experience.

		it290		Nov 13, 2003
			If you're just looking for an OS that will run fast with a Pentium and has lots of apps available, I'd just go for pure DOS 6 (or FreeDOS..or DR-DOS.. or what have you), and skip 3.1 altogether... I guess 3.1 has some stuff you can run, but most of the useful apps and cool games are going to run in DOS anyway- I guess with the exception of a web browser, but since you'll be running 95 as well that won't be an issue. Like I said above, you might give QNX a shot, it's kind of cool, but it also doesn't really have any apps since it's meant for embedded systems. It does have a decent browser that comes with it however, and there are some media players and other things available for it. I installed it for the sole purpose of running an Amiga emu called AmigaOSXL, which completely roxors.

		Curtis		Nov 13, 2003
			Partition Magic 8 has a boot loader - Boot Magic. I'm pretty sure it can dynamically change which partition is the primary (boot) partition at start up. This would mean that OSes could happily work together - each would be unaware of the other. Win 3.11 /Win 2.0 should be easy. If my memory serves, you should be able to install them in different directories (eg c:\win311 c:\win2) and they will work. Try it and see.

		Tindo@heart		Nov 14, 2003
			There is ton of software for Windows 3.1 and 3.11. Win 3.11 would be more efficient for networking and may be a bit faster. I have 3.11 on a Pentium 1 200Mhz with 64MB ram and 1gig harddrive. Hahaha, it's like a supercomputer. I have WS_FTP_LE, Mirc, Internet Explorer 5, WinPlay3 MP3 player, Realplayer, and Quicktime. It can boot and log onto the network in less than 20 seconds, haha. With broadband it downloads >1mbps when I had trouble getting Win95 to do that. Microsoft provided a lot of 32-bit upgrades for Win 3.1. You can use a 32-bit winsock and still use many modern internet programs. It connects seemlessly with my LAN shares and printers. Windows 3.11 is the fastest and most effiecient GUI OS to install on a lower spec machine. I haven't tried OS/2. Yes, you should be able to install Win 3.1 and 2.0 in separate directories. This doesn't require boot loaders or partioning. Just name your "C:\Windows" directory to something like "C:\Win31" or "C:\Win20" and keep them separate. You can even edit your "autoexec.bat" file to ask you which version to boot. Use DOS 6.22 if you decided to install Early releases of Windows 95 had a version of it's DOS that allowed you to install Win 3.1. The Win 3.1 "scene" called it Dos 7. You could basically format your drive with Win95 and make it bootable. and then install Win3.1. After Windows 95b it's version of DOS locked out that ability, when loading Win3.1 you would be greeted with "Incompatible version of DOS" :-(

		Jeffrey		Nov 14, 2003
			Ok. I checked the laptop. I actually have a 800MB HD. But now I have new concerns: What about hardware compatability? Will my PCMCIA modem still work on 3.1? I also have a back pack CD burner which hooks up via the printer port. I'd love a faster system, but I want to know what I'd be sacrificing before I make the big change. For those of you who have "downgraded", what is the difference in boot time? I know it is not instant on like my CE, but for the sake of experiment, I want to know if anyone has regretted the experiment?

		Tindo@heart		Nov 14, 2003
			PCMCIA modem on 3.1, I really doubt it. A CD burner via parallel port on 3.1, that's would be a miracle . . . but maybe possible if some 3.1 programming freak had the heart. The boot time and "flashy-ness" would be nice, but you'll be limited in performing modern functions. It would be fun though, right?

		it290		Nov 14, 2003
			I have my doubts about the CD burner as well, but you _might_ be able to get the PCMCIA working if there are drivers for it. I kind of doubt that as well though. I take it your laptop originally came with 95 installed (and came w/the modem)? If so, there probably aren't any drivers available for 3.1... even if there are, if you don't have them already you probably won't be able to find them. Maybe you could use an external modem if your machine already has a standard serial port.

		Jeffrey		Nov 14, 2003
			Ok. I am starting to reconsider this. Do you think it would be possible to run Win 2.0 as a program with in Win95? Also, is there any simple way to drastically slim down and speed up Win 95? I am interested in speeding up the boot. I don't really have plans to use the computer for any big jobs? I am thinking of making a really fast machine.