VOGONS


WfW 3.11 - how this guy did that?

Topic actions

First post, by retropol

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55yp3uGwJKw

problem is I even try to set SVGA 1024x768 256cols from regular win setup , and my lcd monitor shows freq out of sync...

Reply 1 of 20, by jaZz_KCS

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Windows 3.11 needs a specific driver for each chipset family of graphic accelerators. There are only very few "generic drivers" which also only work for a handful of cards... You have to search for the Win3.1 drivers for your specific graphics chip in order to achieve any resolution beyond 640x480x16. The few SVGA drivers that are shipped with Win3.1 are only working for the handful of graphics chipsets that were released at the time when Win3.1 came out. With a chance of 95% upwards you will be in need of your specific 3rd party driver, as the setup states, when installing. You can always change/install your specific graphics card driver after the installation has finished via the Windows Setup.

If you have any problems finding the driver you would need, state the model of your GPU card / model of your computer (if it's a laptop)

Reply 2 of 20, by canthearu

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
retropol wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55yp3uGwJKw

problem is I even try to set SVGA 1024x768 256cols from regular win setup , and my lcd monitor shows freq out of sync...

He probably used a fast Pentium MMX with a matrox G200 PCI card. I've played with this combination as well, but ultimately moved to windows 95/98 on this computer because I wanted larger hard drive partitions than 2GB.

This combination is very very fast for a Windows 3.11 machine, and using the Matrox G200 drivers means the drivers will read a compatible refresh rate from your monitor and use it with your monitor, allowing for extremely high resolutions and color depths with exceptionally responsive performance.

Reply 3 of 20, by keenmaster486

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Why couldn't you accomplish this same thing but faster with a Pentium III and a TNT2 card, or something like that? Obviously WFW 3.11 is a not the right OS for such a machine but still.

World's foremost 486 enjoyer.

Reply 4 of 20, by maxtherabbit

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Its showing out of sync because many/most ISA and VLB cards default to using interlaced scan modes for 1024x768 to achieve compatibility with old VGA displays. Look for a manufacturer specific utility for your video card to select a 60Hz progressive timing mode for 1024x768

Reply 5 of 20, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
retropol wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55yp3uGwJKw

problem is I even try to set SVGA 1024x768 256cols from regular win setup , and my lcd monitor shows freq out of sync...

Another workaround is using a patched SVGA driver. Some guys patched that universal WfW driver in a way so it would always use VESA VBE graphics modes,
instead of setting-up each of the old chipsets' indivdual SVGA modes (Cirrus, Oak, Trident, Tseng etc).
See Re: Windows 3.11 for Workgroups and NVidia FX 5200?

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 6 of 20, by Bruninho

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jo22 wrote:
Another workaround is using a patched SVGA driver. Some guys patched that universal WfW driver in a way so it would always use V […]
Show full quote
retropol wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55yp3uGwJKw

problem is I even try to set SVGA 1024x768 256cols from regular win setup , and my lcd monitor shows freq out of sync...

Another workaround is using a patched SVGA driver. Some guys patched that universal WfW driver in a way so it would always use VESA VBE graphics modes,
instead of setting-up each of the old chipsets' indivdual SVGA modes (Cirrus, Oak, Trident, Tseng etc).
See Re: Windows 3.11 for Workgroups and NVidia FX 5200?

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I got so damn interested in how the hell he achieved a such amazing resolution. Is it possible with DOSBox?

"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!

Reply 7 of 20, by BinaryDemon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
bfcastello wrote:

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I got so damn interested in how the hell he achieved a such amazing resolution. Is it possible with DOSBox?

Vanilla DosBox is emulating a 2mb videocard, so its unlikely a modified driver would help. Some of the custom builds allow for more flexibility.

Check out DOSBox Distro:

https://sites.google.com/site/dosboxdistro/ [*]

a lightweight Linux distro (tinycore) which boots off a usb flash drive and goes straight to DOSBox.

Make your dos retrogaming experience portable!

Reply 9 of 20, by Bruninho

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
jmarsh wrote:

Vanilla DOSBox works fine at 1024x768 64K using the S3 Trio64V driver.

Yeah, I know, but the video shows a higher resolution. I wonder if it could be done in dosbox-x version

EDIT: Excerpt taken from Dosbox wiki:

svga_s3 (vga on DOSBox 0.71 and 0.72) is SVGA (Super Video Graphics Array): A loose standard designed to allow graphics modes superior to that of VGA. This option emulates an S3 Trio64, one of the most compatible SVGA cards, supporting 256 colors at up to 1600x1200 and full (32- or 24-bit) color at up to 1024x768. It is nearly 100% backwards compatible with VGA, and thus is backwards compatible with EGA and CGA (except 16-color composite mode). It is not backwards compatible with special Tandy, PCjr or Hercules Monochrome graphics modes.

Last edited by Bruninho on 2019-08-27, 13:38. Edited 1 time in total.

"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!

Reply 10 of 20, by Bruninho

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
BinaryDemon wrote:
bfcastello wrote:

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I got so damn interested in how the hell he achieved a such amazing resolution. Is it possible with DOSBox?

Vanilla DosBox is emulating a 2mb videocard, so its unlikely a modified driver would help. Some of the custom builds allow for more flexibility.

Heyy, that distro in your signature! Does it allow to use other dosbox versions? I was exactly looking for a similar solution to use with my raspberry pi 3

"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!

Reply 11 of 20, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
BinaryDemon wrote:
bfcastello wrote:

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I got so damn interested in how the hell he achieved a such amazing resolution. Is it possible with DOSBox?

Vanilla DosBox is emulating a 2mb videocard, so its unlikely a modified driver would help. Some of the custom builds allow for more flexibility.

MS Virtual PC 2007 supports more than that. By default, it emulates a S3 Trio 32/64 PCI with VBE 2.0 and 8MB of RAM, if memory serves.
However, some old S3 drivers may only detect 2 to 4MB of RAM (hence it's better to use the supplied VM additions).
The maximum VRAM VPC can provide is 16MB, I believe. That requires some manual editiing of the *.vmc file, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual … ted_environment

Edit: I forgot. There's an important patch for VPC 2007, KB958162_64bit.msp (KB958162_32bit.msp for Win x86).
Also, AMD-V/Intel-VT is required to get Win32s v1.30c working (v1.25 may work without, not sure).
Enabled hardware virtualization also speeds up MS-DOS in real-mode.
Without it, MS-DOS in V86 mode may be faster (= EMM386 or QEMM loaded).
That's in contrast to Win9x or OS/2. They run more stable without AMD-V/Intel-VT.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 12 of 20, by Orkay

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Matrox video cards have very broad driver support, much like 3Com network cards. With the right model, you can load up a driver for Windows 3.1x, Windows NT 3.5x, and even OS/2 from here: https://matrox.com/graphics/en/support/driver … atest/previous/

If you want a 16MB or 32MB video card working with Windows 3.1, you could even go for a Matrox G400. I imagine the AGP variant would work, but I've yet to try one of mine. If you plan to try Windows NT 3.51, you'll need to find an AGP hotfix that addresses an issue with switching to a full screen command prompt unless you're just using the PCI variant.

I ran this on an 800MHz Pentium III and 256MB of RAM, but I wouldn't normally run WfW 3.11 on a system like that. The excessive hardware was mainly used to prove that running such an old operating system on this kind of computer is indeed possible, and to speed up the direct upgrading and downgrading of operating systems as part of a larger video, that being Hardcore Windows 98 Segment 4: https://youtu.be/H7LlqUE-Jl0?t=9m23s

256MB of RAM with MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 isn't useful since DOS can only see up to 64MB of RAM unless you use HIMEMX, and even then, you won't be able to load more than a few programs at once in Windows 3.1x due to conventional memory limitations. The higher resolutions will be more useful in Windows NT 3.51, but a later Matrox card like the G200/G400 still makes sense in Windows 3.1x if you're running a single program that benefits from high color and large screen space.

Reply 14 of 20, by retropol

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

i have cl-gd5428-80qc-a

found drivers on vogons

installed

the max I can achieve is 1024x768 x 256col or 12??x??? (dont remember) x 16col

why? this vga card is not able to achieve more?

and, what monitor I should use - the one (LCD) I have is not able to display 1024x768 because of Hz / sync issue (

Reply 15 of 20, by Orkay

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

It may be trying to use interlacing to achieve a feasible refresh rate, which your LCD probably can't handle. I have several video cards from 1995 and earlier which have a tendency to use interlacing by default at 1024x768 or higher. Any conventional 15" or 17" CRT should work with that, but the picture will look worse. Even cards that can achieve high resolutions with progressive scan like the Matrox Millennium I may insist on using a refresh rate of 72Hz at 800x600.

I imagine your Cirrus Logic driver should come with a program called SETRES.EXE that may allow you to change the refresh rate alongside the resolution, never tried it though.

Reply 16 of 20, by retropol

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

yes there is SETRES

- 800x600 x 65k colors - is max I can achieve on this lcd monitor with no problems

- there is also 1024x768 x 256col available on the options but LCD has sync issues when changing to it
- there is also 1248x1024 x 16col available on the options but LCD has sync issues when changing to it

if I dont see possibility in SETRES to set more than 256 cols on 1024x768 it is not a problem of driver - it is the limit of the card itself? no ram?

Reply 17 of 20, by Orkay

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I took a quick look at the SETRES.EXE program, and there doesn't seem to be a refresh rate selector, though I don't think refresh rate and color/resolution settings are connected. I don't have too much experience with Windows 3.1x, so I can't give a solid answer as to how to set the refresh rate another way.

As for the higher color/resolution settings, that is most definitely a card limitation; judging by the the the maximum settings you have available, you have 1MB of video RAM on your card, which limits you to those settings you mentioned. If your video card has sockets to upgrade the RAM, you could try to find some compatible memory on eBay so you can upgrade it to 2MB, which is required to use the 1024x768 resolution in 16-bit color. The model doesn't have to match exactly, but you do need to make sure the specs match up well with the soldered memory. If your card uses 60ns memory, you can expand it with 50ns memory since it'll slow down to match the existing 60ns chips, but you can't use 70ns memory. I'm just providing an example, so if you want to upgrade the memory on your card, tell me what the labels on the memory chips say (and provide a picture of your card if possible) and I might be able to suggest some compatible memory.

Reply 18 of 20, by NJRoadfan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Keep in mind that Windows 3.1x is limited to about 4MB of video memory due to its design. High resolution/color displays weren't a priority in 1992. Very few people ran desktops higher than 640x480 until well into the Windows 9x era.

Reply 19 of 20, by BinaryDemon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
bfcastello wrote:

Heyy, that distro in your signature! Does it allow to use other dosbox versions? I was exactly looking for a similar solution to use with my raspberry pi 3

Sorry I didnt see this earlier. Good question, I never tried. I've just always used the dosbox package designed for tinycore.

Check out DOSBox Distro:

https://sites.google.com/site/dosboxdistro/ [*]

a lightweight Linux distro (tinycore) which boots off a usb flash drive and goes straight to DOSBox.

Make your dos retrogaming experience portable!