Windows 3.0 for Intel InBoard/386 - Rare Intel Edition

firstlight

I've recently acquired an original boxed copy of a rare and special edition of Windows 3.0 for the Intel InBoard/386 PC. I think up to now this edition of Windows has been extinct. I don't know how to make disk images from the provided 5.25" media - any advice appreciated.

SoftPCMuseum

ImageDisk has been reliable in my experience, as long as you set it to preserve the interleave factor and also create an extra disk image for each disk with data recorded in bad sectors saved. You will also need to use the command line tools to create .IMG disk images out of the ones that you created with ImageDisk. Note that for this to work, you will need an old PC with a floppy disk drive and that can be used to run real mode MS-DOS-based applications.

Alternatively, if you wanted to go even further, you could duplicate the floppy disk media using a SuperCard Pro or Kryoflux controller board, and provide magnetic disk streams in addition to the raw .IMG disk images.

SomeGuy

First of all, WRITE PROTECT the disks. This is especially important if you use Windows 9x, as it always tried to write back to floppies.

Are these 360K or 1.2mb disks? If they are 1.2mb disks, then you need at least a 1.2mb drive.

Since these would not be copy protected, you would not need to do anything too fancy.

You can either use a DOS computer with a 5.25" drive and ImageDisk: http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/img/index.htm

Or you can use a Windows 9x machine and WinImage: http://www.winimage.com/ You will probably need to add a 5.25" drive to any 9x class computer but they work just fine with them. (Some XP machines or later will work, but it is more hit and miss and they often only support one floppy drive).

Kryoflux and SuperCard Pro USB interface cards are popular alternatives for use with lobotomized "modern" machines that no longer have real floppy controllers.

If you wish to contribute that here, you can send it in in whatever format needed and we should be able to work with it and convert it.

nc_mike

It appears some kind soul (not me) posted a copy to Vetusware: http://vetusware.com/download/Microsoft ... /?id=12044

It would be nice for WinWorld to catch up and post it here.

:-)

SomeGuy

The Inboard 386 version was added to the Windows 3.0 section a while back:
https://winworldpc.com/product/windows-3/30

TCPMeta

Isn't images a little obsessive for something that isn't bootable or needs a special filesystem? Couldn't you just copy the files to a directory with sub directories for every disk and have the sub directories labeled with the same names of the disks?

calvinb

We're interested in preservation, so it needs to be as accurate and proper as possible, so things like unused by not empty sectors, and timestamps can be preserved. Worst-case, a file archive could be used.

SomeGuy

There are several reasons for using disk images rather than files.

One big problem is that 7-zip and some other formats royally fuck up date stamps. They try to be "fancy" by adjusting date stamps for time zones. This is incorrect behavior for DOS. I'm sorry, but the time stamp on your Lotus 1-2-3 EXE should always be 1:23PM, or whatever.

Another thing is that you lose time stamps on folders. Sometimes this can also be important.

Another issue is that some people (especially true of vintage computing folks) need to put the files back on genuine floppy disks. More often than not, idiots who zip up a bunch of files from a floppy just throw them in one folder so you have no way to know which of the 156 files go on which of 10 disks.

There is also the issue that many, many, many, many DOS installers look for volume labels, and these are almost always omitted in file archives. In fact I am looking at one archive right now where the submitter omitted the volume labels and the setup would not run without. I had to do a whole bunch of guessing and prodding in the EXE before I figured out exactly what it wanted.

There are also issues that without images you can miss hidden files. Of course, copy protection is a whole other can of worms.

And although nitpickey, some vendors went to a bit of trouble to make sure their files were in the order they are set up or run, to optimize load time on the floppy. Slapping files back on in alphabetical order (like "modern" OSes always enforce), will lose that.