OS Hard Disc Space

[Sysman]

Which version of Dos?

Max partition size was an enormous 32Mb in dos 3...

Max partition size later on was 2.1Gb for FAT16.

Dos can't see (so far as I'm aware) FAT32... (or NTFS) without additional jiggery pokery.

NT 4.0 couldn't do FAT32 either, though I seem to remember some frigs to do it (read-only?) at a later date.

[Sysman]

I seem to recall that 98 et al had problems with too much ram...

Anyway, wot about Win3.0, Win3.1, and Win3.11. You just can't ignore the classics...

Can anyone remember the maximum disk size supported by DOS, Win 3.n, and Win 95, 98, ME?

Since we are talking installations here, I'm 99% certain that NT 4.0 could only initialise a maximum of 2 GB, though would happily install onto a larger disk if already initialised as NTFS.

[Churchill]

I seem to recall that 98 et al had problems with too much ram...

Anyway, wot about Win3.0, Win3.1, and Win3.11. You just can't ignore the classics...

OS/2

Anything pre V2.0

[NickFitz]

According to this message, Windows 98 will run OK on a quad core.

Although you can't necessarily trust what people say in online forums

[FarmerPalmer]

Thanks for the tips guys

[darmstadt]

If you really want to use a real machine, then perhaps you could use something like Ghost to create fresh install images of each OS.

Good idea. This is what I did in my last project. Installed the base OS and then customised and added the basic tolls that I needed, then made a Ghost backup of it. Each application that I then installed had a backup made after it was installed and customised so that I could go back to any point in time. Did take up some time though with 15 servers running different OS'es which is why I went the virtualisation route.

[VectraMan]

One great thing about VMs is being able to revert to a previous clean state. I have XP, Vista, V7, Ubuntu & Kubuntu all as clean installs under Virtual Box so I can easily play and then ditch anything I've done and start again, without all the hassle of reinstalling.

If you really want to use a real machine, then perhaps you could use something like Ghost to create fresh install images of each OS.

[darmstadt]

I was going to suggest the virtualisation option but you've decided not to with that but that it was I have done. I have a quad core with 2tb disk and 6gb memory running Vista x64 so that I can run various version of Linux (SLES, OpenSuSE, RHEL, Debian, Fedora, GoS) and Windows (WIN2004, WIN2008, Win 7) to test applications. I use VMWare as I found problems with Virtual PC and Sun xVM with certain OS'es but VMWare seems okay. Just setting up a server which has 4fb memory and 2 3.2ghz processors to run VMWare ESXi which will allow me to run more OS'es.

With the Linux systems I tend to make them about 30-50gb size each and install as much as possible (although Debian is a pain) and use LVM as the filesystem as it allows you to expand if you run out of space. The easiest is to make / as an LVM or at least /home, /opt, /usr and /var as LVMs.

[FarmerPalmer]

It'll run with less but, yes, in the real world you want 2GB. I've found it runs well with that and you'll only need 4 if you are gaming/video editing or similar.

Thanks - I think I'll go with 4Gb then - to make sure whatever I do runs smoothly.

Do I want 4Gb RAM and at least 420Gb Hard Disc.

hmmmm - and I'm not sure I can use the older OSs - can you see Win 95 running on a dual or quad core processor.

I remember upgrading to 98 because 95 had problems with the old K6/2

[Durbs]

Is 2Gb a minimum for Vista then ? and it runs better under 4Gb.

It'll run with less but, yes, in the real world you want 2GB. I've found it runs well with that and you'll only need 4 if you are gaming/video editing or similar.

[FarmerPalmer]

It will be a lot less hassle to go virtual.
VMware server or VirtualBox are free.
4GB is cheap and a processor with the virtualisation extensions will make the virtual machines run very comfortably.

You can even download linux distributions as virtual machines on bittorrrent which will save you the time of having to install them.

I can see where you are coming from - but I don't want to virtualise,
or get an off the shelf installation, as

- I want to go through the installation learning exercise,
and find the problems that entails

- I want to be able to write hardware drivers for hardware
etc so want a direct (non-virtual) link

Is 2Gb a minimum for Vista then ? and it runs better under 4Gb.

I am currently a Vista virgin. I have the Microsoft partner packs,
but only use XP for business.

I'm looking to build up this machine so I can try things out
without breaking my regular daily use machines

[crack_ho]

It will be a lot less hassle to go virtual.
VMware server or VirtualBox are free.
4GB is cheap and a processor with the virtualisation extensions will make the virtual machines run very comfortably.

You can even download linux distributions as virtual machines on bittorrrent which will save you the time of having to install them.

[FarmerPalmer]

I am going to configure a multi-OS development machine so I can test / play / try / develop with as many OS as possible.

e.g. I was looking at adding

Suse, Ubuntu
DOS, 95, 98, ME
Win NT, 2000, 2003, 2008, Home Server
Win XP Home, Pro, Embedded
Vista Basic, Premium, Business, Ultimate
Win 7

My main concern is memory and disc space requirements for Vista.

I was thinking 2Gb or should I go for 4Gb RAM ?

Will Vista be OK is 40Gb partitions or do I need to go bigger ?

I was going for 20GB partitions, with all the DOS based OS in one single partition, and the rest in their own seperate 20Gb partitions, with the exception of Vista, where I was going up to 40Gb.

Does this sound about right ?