Run MSD, see what protocol your mouse is actually using, left column near the bottom. Now a switch for MS-PS2 on the mouse or driver or documentation saying mouse is in MS mode doesn't necessarily mean MicroSoft... back in ancient times Mouse Systems was a legit hardware manufacturer and had their own mouse protocol, whereas a popular view of MicroSoft at the time might have been "That crappy little Seattle software house that somehow got rights to resell PC-DOS", so MS mode can just as well mean Mouse Systems as MicroSoft.

Why just 1mb of ram? My 286/12 has 8mb and runs MS Windows 3.1....

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-12-11, 04:57:

Why just 1mb of ram? My 286/12 has 8mb and runs MS Windows 3.1....

Because the objective is not to have the fastest more 1337 machine - I want to have a time-period machine. My 486 at the time had 4Mb of RAM, so it's not logical to have 8Mb on this 386.

By all means, but that's rubbish. From a logical, technical point of view, I mean. 🤓
It's not about speed, it's about minimum requirements. Nostalgia, or not. 😔

My father's 386DX/40 in 1995, had 16MB RAM installed (eight SIMMs) - to run the upcoming Win95 RTM sort of.
My 286/12 PC had 4MB RAM (4x 1MB SIMMs) installed, about the same time.
And I had DOS 6.2+Windows 3.1 on an 40MB Conner HDD too (80MB model, used as 40 MB drive).

But I assume, in todays world, all of us would be posthumously crucified by these period-correctness dudes around the globe for doing this. 😀
Because the configuration wasn't period-correct, even though it actually was (it existed - then).

For 386 Enhanced-Mode, Windows 3.0 officially requires 1MB of free XMS (minimum), not just 1MB installed.
And that's the bare minimum for Windows+Program Manager only.
Bigger third-party drivers not included on the Windows diskettes may not fit into that, anymore.
https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/096/Q96830/

But if the Real-Mode kernal is adequate, 1MB is fine. To run small Windows programs.
Just run Windows 3.0 with Win /R
To run bigger ones, Windows 3.0 needs Expanded Memory.

Windows 1x-3x need contiguous memory to work properly.
It can't work if memory is scattered around, with used memory parts in between.
But that's exactly what happens when little memory is available.
DOS stuff uses the memory below 1MB, so Windows must shuffle around memory in order to run at all.
Give Windows 1MB of RAM for its own, like that XMS memory, and it will be stable.
Hence, 2MB of total memory makes such a difference! 😀

386/486 PCs sold in my place in ~1993/94 had 2MB, at least.
But even then, Windows on a 386+ PC often did automatically boot into Standard Mode unless forced into 386 Enhanced through Win /3.

Windows doesn't use DOS mice drivers, unless for the DOS programs thar run in a window.
If say, the Mouse driver 9 is loaded in both DOS/Windows, respectively, the DOS window of Windows 3.x in 386 Enhanced mode has a seamless mouse cursor. As in Win95.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-11, 17:13:

By all means, but that's rubbish. From a logical, technical point of view, I mean. 🤓
It's not about speed, it's about minimum requirements. Nostalgia, or not. 😔

From a logical, technical point of view I should just dump it in the recicling bin and use the Cyrix-100 next to it instead - or, better yet, dump everything and just keep my main machine where I'm typing this.

I totally understand your view, but, to me, the only reason I keep these old machines is to remember how things were using your typical PC of the era (and your typical user like me was lucky enough to have his parents buy him a nifty 486SX with 4Mbs, so that it took a long time to convince them to spend the extra cash for another 4Mb).

So, yes, I have other PCs where I can run Windows 3.1 - but this one is destined to run 3.0, along with games that I manage to run on its 1Mb Ram.

Thanks for the input!

It's the same as that GPU-CPU argument, max the GPU to make the most out of the CPU, but then you're dissing the GPU by not giving it enough CPU. But it's up to the hardware owner to decide what their idea of the system should be.

The mouse is a large part of a point and click GUI and the idea that MicroSoft would release a version that could run on base RAM but not use the mouse is a bit ludicrous, even if it only left 64kB free for program.

But I'll say again, double check what protocol the mouse is initialised into, either by switch or DOS mouse driver, Microsoft mouse driver in windows will not work with MS mouse systems setting, or logitech mode, or PS/2 mode (Which can be the protocol even if the interface is serial) If it's in a different mode, set it to that in Windows, or flip the switch physically or by command line parameter to put it in a mode that has a standard windows driver.

mrwho wrote on 2021-12-11, 10:34:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-12-11, 04:57:

Why just 1mb of ram? My 286/12 has 8mb and runs MS Windows 3.1....

Becaus the objective is not to have the fastest more 1337 machine - I want to have a time-period machine. My 486 at the time had 4Mb of RAM, so it's not logical to have 8Mb on this 386.

Rubbish. My 1989 386Dx33 has 8megs of ram and was used by a land surveyor. He installed a scsi multi i/o controller and 100mb scsi hdd. The software was Dos based.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-11, 17:13:

By all means, but that's rubbish. From a logical, technical point of view, I mean. 🤓 It's not about speed, it's about minimum re […]
Show full quote

By all means, but that's rubbish. From a logical, technical point of view, I mean. 🤓
It's not about speed, it's about minimum requirements. Nostalgia, or not. 😔

My father's 386DX/40 in 1995, had 16MB RAM installed (eight SIMMs) - to run the upcoming Win95 RTM sort of.
My 286/12 PC had 4MB RAM (4x 1MB SIMMs) installed, about the same time.
And I had DOS 6.2+Windows 3.1 on an 40MB Conner HDD too (80MB model, used as 40 MB drive).

But I assume, in todays world, all of us would be posthumously crucified by these period-correctness dudes around the globe for doing this. 😀
Because the configuration wasn't period-correct, even though it actually was (it existed - then).

For 386 Enhanced-Mode, Windows 3.0 officially requires 1MB of free XMS (minimum), not just 1MB installed.
And that's the bare minimum for Windows+Program Manager only.
Bigger third-party drivers not included on the Windows diskettes may not fit into that, anymore.
https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/096/Q96830/

But if the Real-Mode kernal is adequate, 1MB is fine. To run small Windows programs.
Just run Windows 3.0 with Win /R
To run bigger ones, Windows 3.0 needs Expanded Memory.

Windows 1x-3x need contiguous memory to work properly.
It can't work if memory is scattered around, with used memory parts in between.
But that's exactly what happens when little memory is available.
DOS stuff uses the memory below 1MB, so Windows must shuffle around memory in order to run at all.
Give Windows 1MB of RAM for its own, like that XMS memory, and it will be stable.
Hence, 2MB of total memory makes such a difference! 😀

386/486 PCs sold in my place in ~1993/94 had 2MB, at least.
But even then, Windows on a 386+ PC often did automatically boot into Standard Mode unless forced into 386 Enhanced through Win /3.

Windows doesn't use DOS mice drivers, unless for the DOS programs thar run in a window.
If say, the Mouse driver 9 is loaded in both DOS/Windows, respectively, the DOS window of Windows 3.x in 386 Enhanced mode has a seamless mouse cursor. As in Win95.

I'm still waiting for your apology for falsely accusing me of threatening you by PM.

^I second that. 😎👍

mrwho wrote on 2021-12-11, 17:30:

I totally understand your view, but, to me, the only reason I keep these old machines is to remember how things were using your typical PC of the era (and your typical user like me was lucky enough to have his parents buy him a nifty 486SX with 4Mbs, so that it took a long time to convince them to spend the extra cash for another 4Mb).

Sure, but how does 1MB more make a difference? 😕

Here's an old thread about running Windows 3.1 with little memory, for example.

(Windows 3.1 is more complex but also got assembly code optimizations.
Windows 3.0 was compiled from pure C, if memory serves.)

Windows 3.1 on a 386 with 640K RAM - Possible?

It runs, yes, or rather, walks.
Giving Windows 3.x the memory it physically requires isn't wrong, or is it? 😕

mrwho wrote on 2021-12-11, 17:30:

So, yes, I have other PCs where I can run Windows 3.1 - but this one is destined to run 3.0, along with games that I manage to run on its 1Mb Ram.

Thanks for the input!

You're welcome. 🙂💙

Running Windows 3.0 is not the problem, I think, it can run many programs in Standard-/Enhanced-Mode.
Including Visual Basic, Turbo Pascal Windows, astronomy programs, desktop games etc.

The problem rather is that you attempt to run it with 1MB of total memory.
That's below the official minimum requirements.
At least if you attempting to run it in Standard-/386 Enhanced-Mode.
It's not my fault, I didn't make these requirements. 🤷‍♂️

A so-called "period-correct" configuration here would be 1024KB free XMS plus 640KB base memory.
Without UMS etc that would equal 1664 KB of total RAM installed.

Extended Memory Requirements
----------------------------

Your system must have at least 1 megabyte (MB) (1,048,576 bytes) of extended
memory. To determine the amount of available extended memory, type the following
at the MS-DOS command prompt, and press ENTER:

" mem" (without the quotation marks)

If you do not have 1 MB of available extended memory, reduce your system's
extended memory usage by removing the DOS=HIGH command from your CONFIG.SYS
file. If you are using the version of SMARTDrive that is provided with MS-DOS
5.0 (SMARTDRV.SYS), reduce the value of the MinCacheSize parameter. If you are
using the version of SMARTDrive that is provided with MS-DOS version 6.0 or
later (SMARTDRV.EXE), reduce the value of the WinCacheSize parameter.

Source: https://jeffpar.github.io/kbarchive/kb/096/Q96830/

No offense, but why do you torture yourself here?
2/4/8/16 MB is not hard to come by these days, even.
What's so bad about installing an extra megabyte that solves many issues ?
Using that is not period-incorrect, either. 🙂

Professionals used several dozen MBs for RAM in x86 PCs in that time frame, depending on the application.

Is it one of those motherboards with DIL/DIP chips for RAM? 😨

Anyway, good luck! 🙂👍
Hope you get things working.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-12-11, 18:27:

I'm still waiting for your apology for falsely accusing me of threatening you by PM.

*Sigh* I knew that would happen. 🙄
Okay, please let me explain. Long story short.
a) It was a misunderstanding, as far I'm concerned.
I did a recommendation (use PMs, not the public for fighting a dispute), rather than accusing you.
You didn't send me PMs. You merely occasionally showed in the public how little you value me and/or my point of views. 😀
b) I already did apologize by the end of October for causing you any trouble.
It was in a PCem thread, if memory serves.
My post got deleted, unfortunately. Can't find it. Perhaps because it was off-topic, dunno.
c) I banned myself from 1.11 to 1.12 for the sake of fairness, so we'd be quit, sorta.

Guys, I didn't mean my plead for help to extend to a discussion. As someone said, "period correctness" depends on a person's view of that period. For me, when a computer was bought, it stayed with that configuration until the end - it was like buying a TV set or a microwave. I was a kid then, and besides not having much knowledge about expanding your system back then, even what I did know wasn't enough to persuade my parents onto shelling out the money to expand an already expensive commodity.
Furthermore, you can still find a lot of ads online of 386 computers with 1Mb of ram (of course expandable to 4, 8 or 16, but what 15yo kid could convince his parents that he needed that?).

I only began to view PCs as expandable machines with my second PC - an AMD Pentium-clone 75Mhz, and shortly after then I began working at a computer store, so...

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-11, 18:52:

Sure, but how does 1MB more make a difference? 😕

These particular motherboards came with 4x256kb simms, and I don't have any spare ones.

Please don't argue over this - it's all good.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-11, 19:03:

*Sigh* I knew that would happen. 🙄 Okay, please let me explain. Long story short. a) It was a misunderstanding, as far I'm conc […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-12-11, 18:27:

I'm still waiting for your apology for falsely accusing me of threatening you by PM.

*Sigh* I knew that would happen. 🙄
Okay, please let me explain. Long story short.
a) It was a misunderstanding, as far I'm concerned.
I did a recommendation (use PMs, not the public for fighting a dispute), rather than accusing you.
You didn't send me PMs. You merely occasionally showed in the public how little you value me and/or my point of views. 😀
b) I already did apologize by the end of October for causing you any trouble.
It was in a PCem thread, if memory serves.
My post got deleted, unfortunately. Can't find it. Perhaps because it was off-topic, dunno.
c) I banned myself from 1.11 to 1.12 for the sake of fairness, so we'd be quit, sorta.

Bull shit. It was a completely false allegation by you period.

Well, here the gist so far:

- Tried with mouse.com in autoexec.bat
- Tried with mouse.sys in config.sys
- Tried with alternate driver mouse.com in autoexec.bat
- Tried with alternate driver mouse.sys in config.sys
- MSD (correctly) identifies the mouse as a serial mouse
- Popped out the SD card with the OS (128Mb card, to keep up the "period correctness") and ran it on DosBox on my machine, and the mouse works fine (probably because it identifies as a PS/2 mouse, don't know).

Going to dig around some more, see what I can find. Will keep you posted.

Additional data:

- Running an image of my SDCard on PCem configured as an AMD 386SX-40 with a serial mouse, windows recognizes the mouse just fine.

Scratching my head over this... Think I'll sleep over it.

Cheers!

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-12-11, 21:51:

Bull shit. It was a completely false allegation by you period.

What I said is written here, if memory serves.
I'm honestly sorry if you've got into trouble because of this. My apologies.
Perhaps it also was because I'm not a native English speaker, not sure - I am also not very fluent with English phrases (or sayingss) in general I'm afraid.
I know, that may sound like a lame excuse to you, but if you check my older postings, you'll see that intentionally accusing people is/was out of character for me. That's not why I am/why I was here.
I can only hope that you believe me here.
Either way, my wording was not good and misleading.
So please accept my apology/apologies. Personally, I've have no problems with you.

mrwho wrote on 2021-12-11, 19:57:

These particular motherboards came with 4x256kb simms, and I don't have any spare ones.

Please don't argue over this - it's all good.

Got it. "The nostalgia is strong in you, Luke." 😀

mrwho wrote on 2021-12-11, 22:58:

Additional data: […]
Show full quote

Additional data:

- Running an image of my SDCard on PCem configured as an AMD 386SX-40 with a serial mouse, windows recognizes the mouse just fine.

Scratching my head over this... Think I'll sleep over it.

Cheers!

Good luck! 😀

Maybe the current wiring on the mouse port is wrong, also.
Often happens with 9 pin serial connectors, also.
If the mouse port is external, attached to a metal bracket with a cable, maybe the plug was inserted the wrong way.

MSD can help to check if the physical connection between the PC and the mouse is working.
MSD does not need a mouse driver to detect a mouse.
It's rather using its own code to probe for mice.

Anyway, without a picture of additional information, it's just a wild guess.

But the idea with PCem really isn't bad, I think.

Hope you get it going!

mrwho wrote on 2021-12-10, 22:33:

- It is configured in the hardware section as "Microsoft/Serial mouse"

What kind of Mouse is it? How many buttons does it have?
You have to run on real DOS SETUP.EXE in your Windows directory to configure your mouse.
Have you tried "Mouse Systems mouse"? (should be used with 3 keys serial mice)

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-13, 12:17:

What I said is written here, if memory serves. I'm honestly sorry if you've got into trouble because of this. My apologies. Pe […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-12-11, 21:51:

Bull shit. It was a completely false allegation by you period.

What I said is written here, if memory serves.
I'm honestly sorry if you've got into trouble because of this. My apologies.
Perhaps it also was because I'm not a native English speaker, not sure - I am also not very fluent with English phrases (or sayingss) in general I'm afraid.
I know, that may sound like a lame excuse to you, but if you check my older postings, you'll see that intentionally accusing people is/was out of character for me. That's not why I am/why I was here.
I can only hope that you believe me here.
Either way, my wording was not good and misleading.
So please accept my apology/apologies. Personally, I've have no problems with you.

Accepted.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-13, 12:17:

Maybe the current wiring on the mouse port is wrong, also.
Often happens with 9 pin serial connectors, also.
If the mouse port is external, attached to a metal bracket with a cable, maybe the plug was inserted the wrong way.

I remember having that in the time when I used to work assembling computers. But this one is soldered onto the ISA expansion card - and, when it happened back then, it didn't work on any software, not just some...

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-13, 12:17:

MSD can help to check if the physical connection between the PC and the mouse is working.
MSD does not need a mouse driver to detect a mouse.
It's rather using its own code to probe for mice.

Didn't know that. Tried to remove the driver from autoexec.bat and, sure enough, MSD detects it as a serial mouse.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-12-13, 12:17:

Hope you get it going!

As this is not an urgent matter, I'll tackle it when I feel like - or when I get any other ideas to get it going. I'm thinking of trying Windows 3.1 just to see if the mouse works there - if it manages to at least load with 1Mb.

Disruptor wrote on 2021-12-13, 14:31:

What kind of Mouse is it? How many buttons does it have? You have to run on real DOS SETUP.EXE in your Windows directory to conf […]
Show full quote

mrwho wrote on 2021-12-10, 22:33:

- It is configured in the hardware section as "Microsoft/Serial mouse"

What kind of Mouse is it? How many buttons does it have?
You have to run on real DOS SETUP.EXE in your Windows directory to configure your mouse.
Have you tried "Mouse Systems mouse"? (should be used with 3 keys serial mice)

It's a Mitsumi 2-button serial mouse connected on COM1.
I ran setup and tried both with "Microsoft or IBM PS/2 mouse" (the standard) and with "Logitech Serial Mouse", to no avail

I'll try your sugestion of "Mouse Systems mouse" next.

Thanks all for your feedback.

Hello again!

Thanks to a user from another retro forum, I finally got this problem solved.

https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/13603 … -0-mouse-issues

Basically the Windows 3.0 driver is dumb enough to not look for alternate serial ports configuration. So my COM1 port was set at 3E8h when it should be 3F8h.

It's working now! Thanks everyone who chimed in, and hope this helps others who might get the same problem.

Best regards to all!