up vote 19 down vote favorite
6
share [g+] share [fb]

I've been tasked with creating a VM with Windows 3.0 and Office 3.0 on it. I have the install disks for Windows and Office but not for DOS. Do I need to have DOS installed first to install Windows 3.1?

link|improve this question
62% accept rate
4  
...so is it Windows 3.0 or 3.1? (Or even 3.11?) – grawity Nov 9 '11 at 0:07
23  
RECOMMENDATION: It is highly recommended that you upgrade to Windows 3.11 (a.k.a., "Windows for Workgroups"). – Randolf Richardson Nov 9 '11 at 0:07
17  
Glad to see nothing has changed since I went into a coma in 1994. Are the Oilers still in Houston? – Patrick S. Nov 9 '11 at 0:36
4  
I'm curious - why would someone need to run a win 3.x system, and whether the need for 3.0 is related to running real mode applications – Journeyman Geek Nov 9 '11 at 0:58
1  
Starring this beast for nostalgia! – surfasb Nov 9 '11 at 3:03
show 5 more comments
feedback

5 Answers

up vote 17 down vote accepted

Windows up till before windows 95 is an operating environment - it runs on top of dos of some flavour (95 and 98 ran with dos, but once they were started, they took over a lot of functionality, and were much closer to a proper operating system. Unlike windows 3.x they were closely coupled to specific versions of dos, so no one ever thinks about it.).

You can run windows 3.x with pretty much any version of dos (except DR dos, iirc - windows actually checked for, and refused to run on it) - supposedly even freedos - see the bottom, dosbox or the ms dos start up floppy disks you can create from windows i believe. You can presumably also get access to dos with a technet subscription, assuming you need a licenced copy.

link|improve this answer
Windows checked for PC DOS and refused to run? I know the story about Windows development versions checking for DR-DOS (and why it was necessary to check), but I never heard about a PC DOS check. Wasn't PC DOS pretty much identical to MS-DOS until version 6? – Andrew J. Brehm Jan 24 at 10:46
Apparently my memory was faulty - it was indeed dr dos en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x#DR-DOS_compatibility. Editing my answer to reflect this – Journeyman Geek Jan 24 at 11:39
feedback
up vote 10 down vote

Windows 3.0 requires DOS to be installed as it's only an user interface or system extension, depending on point of view.

You will not require DOS 6.22, DOS 3.1 is fine, too.

link|improve this answer
I had Windows 3.11 running under MS-DOS 7 once (MS-DOS 7 was included with Windows 95). – Randolf Richardson Nov 9 '11 at 0:09
2  
it would run under dos 8 too. – Journeyman Geek Nov 9 '11 at 0:31
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

Yes you do as Windows 3.1 is an application that runs under DOS

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

Not necessarily. You could install OS/2 and run Windows 3.0 from it's DOS box.

link|improve this answer
Why is it like that? – Simon Sheehan Nov 9 '11 at 23:52
Running an obscure, obsolete OS from an even more obscure obsolete OS? makes sense though - since OS/2 is the bizzaro world NT, where dos never went obsolete. – Journeyman Geek Nov 10 '11 at 0:31
For those who remember the day, seeing Windows boot up in an OS/2 DOS box was amazing. I'm sure that it inspired the creators of VMWare as few people knew at that time that it was possible to virtualise the OS on an Intel processor. – Stuart Woodward Nov 10 '11 at 15:07
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Windows 3.11 for Workgroups is your best choice, if available.

Yes, install MS-DOS [6.22] first, as it is required.

link|improve this answer
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown
discard

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.