中国DOS联盟

I'm a newly arrived international student in Japan with not much money. I bought a 5000-yen junk machine. It has no CD drive, floppy drive, or USB flash drive, but the machine is all working fine, and I can guarantee that. Now I want to change the Japanese system in it to a Chinese system. It's a Japanese XP system now. I want to do a hard drive installation, but no matter what I do, I can't get into DOS. I've used矮人DOS, virtual floppy drives, etc., but none work. I hope the experts here can help me. I don't have many friends here, and I rely on everyone. Let me find a sense of family here!!!!! Please help!! I'll study humbly!

1、What does "I have used "Dwarf DOS" and "Virtual Floppy Drive", but neither can be installed. Can't use them" mean?
2、If the C drive is in FAT32 format, you can try using the bootpart.com software to make a DOS.
3、You can download a Shenshan Hongye PE CD image, then install Hongye's PE to your hard drive. Then enter the PE system to install your new system.

Refer to here:

http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17232

http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10231

http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16762

I don't know what phenomenon your installation failure is

What are the differences between the Japanese version of XP and the Chinese version of XP?

Please post the content of the c:\boot.ini file for everyone to see.

Originally posted by bc12060101 at 2007-2-1 22:20:
If the C drive is in FAT32 format, you can try using the bootpart.com software to create a DOS.

I haven't used bootpart.com, but from its introduction

http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm

THE LAST LINE (REWRITEROOT:C:) MUST BE EXECUTING UNDER MSDOS

It seems that it is nothing more than the role of SYS C: plus edit boot.ini (of course, there are a few steps I omitted), and also requires a DOS environment. If I have a DOS boot environment, there is no need for bootpart.com.

It seems that to install DOS under NTs environment, only things like "Dwarf DOS" and "MAXDOS" can be used. Although I have always despised this kind of half-baked DOS and installation methods.

It's very strange. Dwarf DOS and MaxDOS just use hacked grub4dos to boot a DOS floppy disk image. I don't know why there's such talk about being improper. Then what is considered a regular installation of DOS in the NT-based environment?

Originally posted by DOSforever at 2007-2-1 22:39:

I haven't used bootpart.com, but from its introduction

http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm

The last line (REWRITEROOT:C:) MUST BE EXECUTED UNDER MSDOS

It seems nothing but...

Hehe, it seems that even a master has areas where he is not as good as others. I'm really your fan哦:P:P
Brother DOSforever, why don't you seriously study and understand the wonderful aspects of bootpart.com?
I think the wonderful thing about bootpart.com is that it can run in the nt cmd environment and generate the bootsect.dos file required for system boot. In this way, you only need to copy the three files io.sys, command.com, and msdos.sys to the root directory of drive C, and then you can boot into the MS-DOS environment when the system starts.

Hehe he he he... Little bump, this is what I think:

Before I say anything, I'd like to declare that I haven't used any of these things. I learned about them from everyone's descriptions.

As for the so-called core of DOS, of course, it's definitely not that "MAX" or "Dwarf" developed DOS on their own. It's regular DOS (I don't know what version, I think most might just be MS-DOS 7.10). It's a bit exaggerated for you to call it DOS just by borrowing someone else's core. Well, that's not the main thing. The main thing is that it's just a DOS boot environment. What I look down on the most is those who only think of installing this half-baked DOS to rescue when Windows has problems. Actually, they didn't install and use DOS as a system. There used to be such a saying, called "DOS patch under Windows", which actually regards DOS as an appendage of Windows?!

What is a regular installed DOS? I think:
1. It should occupy a separate partition, and if needed, there should be extended partitions. This is especially true for traditional DOS.
2. It should be installed with the original installation disk. Not that incomplete thing that's just a DOS boot environment.

So, since it's called installing DOS, one should install the orthodox DOS. Those modified others' DOS don't have the right to call themselves DOS. When we talk about DOS versions, we only say MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS, etc., and never say there are MaxDOS, Dwarf DOS versions. So I say those are half-baked DOS and installation methods. Of course, I'm not belittling the authors' work. They launched these "DOS" to a certain extent to solve some practical problems, but from another perspective, they harmed DOS. They catered to some people's wish to use DOS perfunctorily.

Heheh, it seems that Brother DOSforever is still a person very persistent about DOS, admirable!

Re: bc12060101

Thanks for the compliment. I don't think I'm any so-called expert. I've just used DOS for a long time, and there are still many things about DOS that I don't understand.

Let's discuss the issue of bootpart.com:
I roughly looked at the software's homepage and its own help file. It means that it can add the boot partitions of other OSes, including DOS, to the boot menu of NTLDR. Actually, the key is to extract the DOS boot sector separately and make it into a file, but the prerequisite is that there is already such a sector - generated by DOS itself. Do you mean that even in the CMD environment, as long as the boot partition is FAT32, I copy the three main DOS files in, and then run bootpart to generate the file of the DOS boot sector?
I don't have an environment to test this now.

Brother DOSforever: What you said is right! Hehe, should say that what I said is correct. In the CMD environment, as long as the boot partition is FAT32, running bootpart can generate the file of the DOS boot sector! Then just copy the three core files into the root directory of drive C, and you can boot into MS-DOS at startup. I specially made a batch file to help friends create a DOS environment under Windows.

Brother DOSforever: You said there's no environment for testing? Why not use VPC?

Generally, I don't like to use virtual things when I have actual ones. Besides, my machine runs tiredly.

http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=23011#pid137669

Brother Xiaoyong (short for Brother DOSforever, since reciprocity is proper), I think you are a bit too persistent. Although the pure DOS system played a very important role in the promotion and development of computers (mainly microcomputers), it doesn't mean it is an excellent system. If it were really an excellent system, it wouldn't have been eliminated. The advantages of DOS lie in the command line and single-tasking, but the command line is not as powerful as the Unix system (for example, batch processing, which is why there is the 4DOS that Brother Xiaoyong advocates). Single-tasking itself is both an advantage and a disadvantage. We can't tolerate our current high-performance computers handling only one simple task.

In my opinion, whether it's DOS, Windows, or Unix systems, they are just tools. A craftsman must sharpen his tools if he wants to do his work well. Only a diamond drill can handle porcelain work. DOS is not all-powerful; it's just a useful tool in certain aspects. Compared to a car, pliers and wrenches are important tools, but they can't replace the function of a car. I don't need to prepare a full set of pliers and wrenches in the car trunk just to be able to drive a car. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. If MaxDOS can solve all the functions that might be needed under DOS, I think it's a good thing, just another kind of Swiss Army knife. Why be so persistent about whether it's pure? This is just like there's no need to be persistent about using 4DOS when using DOS. Because although I often use things related to DOS, I've never used 4DOS, but I haven't encountered any unsolvable problems so far. Compared to the simplicity of DOS, I think 4DOS is a bit too complicated. And compared to MaxDOS, the so-called pure DOS environment of Brother Xiaoyong is a bit too complicated. This is just like although Brother Xiaoyong has installed a pure DOS environment in the system, he still can't avoid using Windows. It's unlikely that Brother Xiaoyong can access the forum, post, and send/receive emails under DOS, right?

What do you think, Brother Xiaoyong?

Xiao Ke, I've answered these questions of yours to you and others several times before. If I were to talk about them, it would probably be a long-winded discussion. I don't have the time to answer one by one right now. If I have time in the future, I'm happy to continue discussing with you.

http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15214

http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=24469

Also, you keep calling me "little" and "brother". Is this polite or not? Hehe. There's no need for formalities; just call me by my name directly.