The problem with installing DOS 6.22 before Windows 98 is that you are stuck with a 2 GB partition. The way this is traditionally done is to boot from a Windows 98 startup floppy, which will detect and configure the CD-ROM drive, before launching the Windows installer on the CD-ROM. The Windows installer will then detect your hard drive and configure all 16 GB of it for use.

Errius wrote on 2020-11-29, 01:25:

The problem with installing DOS 6.22 before Windows 98 is that you are stuck with a 2 GB partition. The way this is traditionally done is to boot from a Windows 98 startup floppy, which will detect and configure the CD-ROM drive, before launching the Windows installer on the CD-ROM. The Windows installer will then detect your hard drive and configure all 16 GB of it for use.

What do you do if you don't have a floppy drive?

Try FreeDOS instead of MS-DOS 6.22? I'm not familiar with FreeDOS myself, but it will allow you to format the entire disk for Windows to later use.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you want to have DOS 6.22 ? Is there anything you plan to run that you know for a fact will not run under Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 ? Except Windows 3.x, I do not know of anything that runs under DOS 6.22 , but not under DOS 7.1 (EDIT except maybe some low level disk utilities that do not handle FAT32).

By the way, Windows 98 SE can very easily be configured to boot only into its included DOS 7.1 without launching Windows itself automatically . Launching Windows from there is just a question of running the "win" command .

EDIT : Just to be clear, "because you want to" is a perfectly valid reason and I'm not questioning your right to do whatever you want with your hardware. I just wanted to point out that , if there is no practical advantage to doing something, you may to considering abstaining from doing it in order make your life easier .

darry wrote on 2020-11-29, 01:54:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you want to have DOS 6.22 ? Is there anything you plan to run that you know for a fact will not run under Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 ? Except Windows 3.x, I do not know of anything that runs under DOS 6.22 , but not under DOS 7.1 .

By the way, Windows 98 SE can very easily be configured to boot only into its included DOS 7.1 without launching Windows itself automatically . Launching Windows from there is just a question of running the "win" command .

As above. Older utilities for Fat16 or not recognition a huge amount of ram will fail but most other programs will run fine.

Errius wrote on 2020-11-29, 01:44:

Try FreeDOS instead of MS-DOS 6.22? I'm not familiar with FreeDOS myself, but it will allow you to format the entire disk for Windows to later use.

How about using the CD installation version of DOS 6.22 that I linked?

DOS 6.22 cannot create partitions larger than 2 GB. You can install Windows on this, and then create additional data partitions, but it's not ideal.

Errius wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:15:

DOS 6.22 cannot create partitions larger than 2 GB. You can install Windows on this, and then create additional data partitions, but it's not ideal.

Then should I just install freedos and windows or just windows with 7.1 built in. People say there are some issues with 7.1 compatibility.

FreeDOS would just be a temporary measure to enable you to format the full drive and copy the Windows installation files onto it. FreeDOS can be booted from CD-ROM or SD card, so bypassing the need for a floppy drive. Installing Windows will remove FreeDOS and install MS-DOS 7.1. You don't have to think about FreeDOS again after that.

(At least I think that will work. I as I said, I'm not actually familiar with FreeDOS. I have never installed Windows 98 on a computer with no floppy drive.)

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:36:

Errius wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:15:

DOS 6.22 cannot create partitions larger than 2 GB. You can install Windows on this, and then create additional data partitions, but it's not ideal.

Then should I just install freedos and windows or just windows with 7.1 built in. People say there are some issues with 7.1 compatibility.

I use Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 exclusively for DOS and have never had an issue with applications/games even when Windows 98 SE was current (not with Windows 95's DOS 7.0 either) .That's not to say there aren't any potential issues, just that I have never experienced one . The only exception to this is old system utilities that are not long filename or FAT32 aware, but there is no reason to use those nowadays .

Do you have any examples of incompatibilities that you have heard of ? Specific examples of software with incompatibilities or links to reports by users experiencing issues could be helpful to other users considering the same options that you are .

EDIT : See these threads :
Football Pro 96 - Dosbox or Dos?
Are there any games that are incompatible with newer versions of DOS?

EDIT : TLDR . With the possible exception of Bio Menace (for which there is a patch) and possibly very old (early 1980s) games there should be no issues with running DOS 7.1 . Even DOS 6.22 has potential compatibility issues, it's not as if anything can be absolutely 100% backwards compatible . IMHO, DOS 7.1 is extremely backwards compatible .

I also used to be suspicious of DOS 7.1, and was annoyed that it was not possible to force Windows to leave the 6.22 installation alone. (It can be done with a boot manager. This will hide the MS-DOS partition from the Windows installer, allowing you to have both 6.22 and 7.1 on the same system.) However I've never encountered a problem with 7.1.

darry wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:54:

I use Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 exclusively for DOS and have never had an issue with applications/games even when Windows 98 SE wa […]
Show full quote

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:36:

Errius wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:15:

DOS 6.22 cannot create partitions larger than 2 GB. You can install Windows on this, and then create additional data partitions, but it's not ideal.

Then should I just install freedos and windows or just windows with 7.1 built in. People say there are some issues with 7.1 compatibility.

I use Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 exclusively for DOS and have never had an issue with applications/games even when Windows 98 SE was current (not with Windows 95's DOS 7.0 either) .That's not to say there aren't any potential issues, just that I have never experienced one . The only exception to this is old system utilities that are not long filename or FAT32 aware, but there is no reason to use those nowadays .

Do you have any examples of incompatibilities that you have heard of ? Specific examples of software with incompatibilities or links to reports by users experiencing issues could be helpful to other users considering the same options that you are .

EDIT : See these threads :
Football Pro 96 - Dosbox or Dos?
Are there any games that are incompatible with newer versions of DOS?

EDIT : TLDR . With the possible exception of Bio Menace (for which there is a patch) and possibly very old (early 1980s) games there should be no issues with running DOS 7.1 . Even DOS 6.22 has potential compatibility issues, it's not as if anything can be absolutely 100% backwards compatible . IMHO, DOS 7.1 is extremely backwards compatible .

Thank you, I have decided I will just install Windows 98, it will work fine for me. The whole DOS 6.22 thing will just cause more confusion for me and this is my first 98 build. It should work just fine. Plus I am pretty sure you can find game fixes for 7.1 as well without a whole new OS like 6.22. Thanks.

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-29, 03:16:

darry wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:54:

I use Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 exclusively for DOS and have never had an issue with applications/games even when Windows 98 SE wa […]
Show full quote

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:36:

Then should I just install freedos and windows or just windows with 7.1 built in. People say there are some issues with 7.1 compatibility.

I use Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 exclusively for DOS and have never had an issue with applications/games even when Windows 98 SE was current (not with Windows 95's DOS 7.0 either) .That's not to say there aren't any potential issues, just that I have never experienced one . The only exception to this is old system utilities that are not long filename or FAT32 aware, but there is no reason to use those nowadays .

Do you have any examples of incompatibilities that you have heard of ? Specific examples of software with incompatibilities or links to reports by users experiencing issues could be helpful to other users considering the same options that you are .

EDIT : See these threads :
Football Pro 96 - Dosbox or Dos?
Are there any games that are incompatible with newer versions of DOS?

EDIT : TLDR . With the possible exception of Bio Menace (for which there is a patch) and possibly very old (early 1980s) games there should be no issues with running DOS 7.1 . Even DOS 6.22 has potential compatibility issues, it's not as if anything can be absolutely 100% backwards compatible . IMHO, DOS 7.1 is extremely backwards compatible .

Thank you, I have decided I will just install Windows 98, it will work fine for me. The whole DOS 6.22 thing will just cause more confusion for me and this is my first 98 build. It should work just fine. Plus I am pretty sure you can find game fixes for 7.1 as well without a whole new OS like 6.22. Thanks.

I am confident that this should work well for you . If ever you do need to boot another version of DOS (if you want to try Windows 3.1, for example), the fact that you are using a CF card adapter should make it easy to just use pop in another CF card, install whatever DOS you need to it and swap CF cards as needed .

If you don't want Windows 98 SE to start automatically at boot, you need to edit msdos.sys and change BootGUI=1 to BootGUI=0 . See http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm for details or ask here if you need more information .

Best of luck with your setup . You have lots of fun in front of you .

darry wrote on 2020-11-29, 03:33:

I am confident that this should work well for you . If ever you do need to boot another version of DOS (if you want to try Windo […]
Show full quote

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-29, 03:16:

darry wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:54:

I use Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 exclusively for DOS and have never had an issue with applications/games even when Windows 98 SE wa […]
Show full quote

I use Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 exclusively for DOS and have never had an issue with applications/games even when Windows 98 SE was current (not with Windows 95's DOS 7.0 either) .That's not to say there aren't any potential issues, just that I have never experienced one . The only exception to this is old system utilities that are not long filename or FAT32 aware, but there is no reason to use those nowadays .

Do you have any examples of incompatibilities that you have heard of ? Specific examples of software with incompatibilities or links to reports by users experiencing issues could be helpful to other users considering the same options that you are .

EDIT : See these threads :
Football Pro 96 - Dosbox or Dos?
Are there any games that are incompatible with newer versions of DOS?

EDIT : TLDR . With the possible exception of Bio Menace (for which there is a patch) and possibly very old (early 1980s) games there should be no issues with running DOS 7.1 . Even DOS 6.22 has potential compatibility issues, it's not as if anything can be absolutely 100% backwards compatible . IMHO, DOS 7.1 is extremely backwards compatible .

Thank you, I have decided I will just install Windows 98, it will work fine for me. The whole DOS 6.22 thing will just cause more confusion for me and this is my first 98 build. It should work just fine. Plus I am pretty sure you can find game fixes for 7.1 as well without a whole new OS like 6.22. Thanks.

I am confident that this should work well for you . If ever you do need to boot another version of DOS (if you want to try Windows 3.1, for example), the fact that you are using a CF card adapter should make it easy to just use pop in another CF card, install whatever DOS you need to it and swap CF cards as needed .

If you don't want Windows 98 SE to start automatically at boot, you need to edit msdos.sys and change BootGUI=1 to BootGUI=0 . See http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm for details or ask here if you need more information .

Best of luck with your setup . You have lots of fun in front of you .

Thanks man, I appreciate it 😁

Same here, DOS 7.X works just as well as any previous version of DOS. There's no need at all for a complicated setup.
Microsoft was (and arguably still is) the king when retro-compatibility was concerned.
Because it sells operating systems.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:01:

darry wrote on 2020-11-29, 01:54:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you want to have DOS 6.22 ? Is there anything you plan to run that you know for a fact will not run under Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 ? Except Windows 3.x, I do not know of anything that runs under DOS 6.22 , but not under DOS 7.1 .

By the way, Windows 98 SE can very easily be configured to boot only into its included DOS 7.1 without launching Windows itself automatically . Launching Windows from there is just a question of running the "win" command .

As above. Older utilities for Fat16 or not recognition a huge amount of ram will fail but most other programs will run fine.

I want dos 6.22/windows for workgroups just because it was my first os and I want the nostalgia, but I am planning to buy 98se and install it then copy my dos/win 311 files directly, my system actually has a floppy connection and I got one for it, this machine is unique in that you can go to a boot menu and select the drive you wish to boot from, making multi booting a snap, no fussing with the boot loader.

I just wanted a system for loading the older os's simply for the nostalgia, I am not a gamer anymore so there is that.

Dennis1959 wrote on 2024-07-05, 01:10:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-11-29, 02:01:

darry wrote on 2020-11-29, 01:54:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you want to have DOS 6.22 ? Is there anything you plan to run that you know for a fact will not run under Windows 98 SE's DOS 7.1 ? Except Windows 3.x, I do not know of anything that runs under DOS 6.22 , but not under DOS 7.1 .

By the way, Windows 98 SE can very easily be configured to boot only into its included DOS 7.1 without launching Windows itself automatically . Launching Windows from there is just a question of running the "win" command .

As above. Older utilities for Fat16 or not recognition a huge amount of ram will fail but most other programs will run fine.

I want dos 6.22/windows for workgroups just because it was my first os and I want the nostalgia, but I am planning to buy 98se and install it then copy my dos/win 311 files directly, my system actually has a floppy connection and I got one for it, this machine is unique in that you can go to a boot menu and select the drive you wish to boot from, making multi booting a snap, no fussing with the boot loader.

I just wanted a system for loading the older os's simply for the nostalgia, I am not a gamer anymore so there is that.

No more than one OS per disk has been my motyo for decades. I have absolutely no regrets.

darry wrote on 2024-07-05, 01:29:

No more than one OS per disk has been my motyo for decades. I have absolutely no regrets.

I can relate to this.

Personally, I did like the OS/2 mini boot manager but..

Once I've found out how much better HPFS is over FAT, it no longer seemed so great.

The inconsistencies with the long file names was annoying too.
- Because, OS/2 did maintain hidden textfiles on FAT, which held the long file names. Which weren't being updated by pure DOS.

Same goes for Windows 98SE and FAT vs FAT32.
The "boot into previous DOS version" feature did merely work on FAT.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-07-05, 09:13:

I can relate to this. […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2024-07-05, 01:29:

No more than one OS per disk has been my motyo for decades. I have absolutely no regrets.

I can relate to this.

Personally, I did like the OS/2 mini boot manager but..

Once I've found out how much better HPFS is over FAT, it no longer seemed so great.

The inconsistencies with the long file names was annoying too.
- Because, OS/2 did maintain hidden textfiles on FAT, which held the long file names. Which weren't being updated by pure DOS.

Same goes for Windows 98SE and FAT vs FAT32.
The "boot into previous DOS version" feature did merely work on FAT.

Hello, the main reason I went with dos 6.22 and WFW was for the nostalgia that is basically what my first real computer had, 486sx

I tried installing dos 7.1 a couple different ways and it absolutely will not run, it has a fit over EMM386, so I thought ok this is from China, ill buy win98se and install it, well I am having the same issue iit does not like emm386, and win98 will not boot due to insufficient memory

I keep getting have to shut down computer to prevent damage.

My system I am trying to work with is an HP pc 6000a, 4 sata ports and a boot menu that will let you choose which drive to boot from, win7 no problems, win vista no problems, win xp no problems, dos 6.22/wfw no problems. dos 7.1 major headache it just will not load emm386, and when I rem it, no wiin98 boot up

I have tried emm386.exe ram d=64 min=0 no good emm386.exe noems no good,

What this was all about was getting dos 7.1 for long file names and full use of 120gb drive under wfw but it is now looking like I will putting the old dos 6.22/wfw drive back in and just going from there as dos 7.1 is having a snit over emm386, and win98 just will not load says not enough memory, the thing has 4gb of memory but allocating it seems to be a major issue.