Jo22 wrote on 2020-12-27, 11:33:

Yes, you're absolutely right. Windows/386 essentially is a bundle of normal Windows 2.x and an additional memory manager. Simply […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-12-25, 19:02:

Also IIRC MS Windows/386 v2.x did actually run on a 286 system with out any modifications. I suspect a 386 system ran it as what was known as Standard Mode in MS Window 3.x.

Yes, you're absolutely right.
Windows/386 essentially is a bundle of normal Windows 2.x and an additional memory manager.
Simply put, it loads 8086 / real-mode Windows in a dedicated VM and DOS applications are handled separately.

That would mean Caluser2000 isn't right.
Windows/386 and Windows 3.x Standard Mode are completely different things.

Windows 1.x, 2.x/286, 3.0 Real Mode
Windows programs - real (CPU mode)
DOS programs - real

Windows 2.x/386
Windows programs - V86
DOS programs - V86

Windows 3.x Standard Mode
Windows programs - protected
DOS programs - real

Windows 3.x 386 Enhanced Mode
Windows programs - protected
DOS programs - V86

I understood there was a 286 and 386 kernal in 2.1/386. win.com just selected the correct one when starting up.

Win 2.x was primarily used as a run time environment for programs like Aldus page Maker wasn't it?

I never used MS Windows 2.x but remember seeing boxes of programs with it as a runtime. GeoWorks Pro 1.2 was my first x86 GUI on my first x86 system, I was a complete noob at that time, a brand new a 286/16 with VGA. Any 386 class system including 386SXs were horribly over priced down here initially. I figured I coulkd always upgrade by mobo swap out in future. It had more complete programs than MS Windows 2.x/3.0 and runs nicely on later XT/XT turbo class systems. Far better than so called "Real Mode". Printer output on a 9-pin dot matrix printer was amazing and you could print banners. Extra fonts were freely available not like the Adobe ones in MS Windows 3.0. Dos covered everything else and you could launch Dos programs from GeoWorks without any problems at all. Of course MS introduced TrueType font in MS Windows 3.1 eliminating the need to use Adobe fonts the its environment.

Interesting discussion folks. Keep the info coming.

@Grzyb, Caluser2000 I meant to say that it is true that Windows/386 can run on a 286 (and 86) systems, as well.

I sadly don't know much about the /286 release, except that it could use the 64KB of extra memory which the HMA (High Memory Area) provides.
I'm not sure if it had any other optimizations, such as 80186/286 instructions.

It's not really related, but..:
Standard Mode in Windows 3.x uses the DOSX extender to load Windows (286 kernal; uses krnl286.exe that relies in 16-Bit Protected Mode).

On Windows 3.0, forcing "win /s" always loads krnl286.exe.
On Windows 3.1, doing the same, will Windows make trying to load krnl386.exe first, though.
If it can't (PC has 286 CPU), it will load krnl286.exe just like Windows 3.0 does.

The 386 Enhanced Mode kernal of Windows 3.x (krnl386.exe) can load VXDs (.386) device drivers, also.
(Except if loaded via win /s, I think. Then, the whole virtual stuff is not loaded. Not sure if it enters V86, though. It likely uses 32-Bit Protected Mode, though.)

These virtual device drivers do differ from the classic Real-Mode and Standard-Mode drivers (.drv) in that they have a "global view" of the hardware.
Manipulation of data is much more convenient through VXDs, I believe.
That's why they became so popular and even Windows programs used them. 😀

Edit: Small edit. Please excuse my poor English, also.
I need to take some English lessons again, I'm afraid. 😅

Edit : Another thing that comes to mind.:
Windows 2.x drivers were rather "static" in comparison to Windows 3.0 drivers.
ie. they could not easily be changed after installation of Windows.
Things became better in Windows 3.0 then.
Windows 3.1 improved even further on this, if memory serves.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-12-27, 19:49:

Manipulation of data is much more convenient through VXDs, I believe.
That's they became so popular and even Windows programs used them. 😀

The convenience of VXD usage was thanks to them being 32-bit.
Originally, VXDs were the only way to run 32-bit code in Windows, so this feature was commonly abused - countless programs installed their own VXDs to easily process data structures >64 KB.
And that was probably the #1 reason for all those neverending Windows 3.x/9x crashes - there was no memory protection between VXDs.

Later on, Microsoft released Win32s, and discouraged using VXDs in applications, pointing to the fact that VXDs were incompatible with Windows NT.
VXDs were also incompatible with OS/2 - but this, of course, wasn't a problem for Microsoft.
Anyway, it was all too late, the VXD plague had already spread out, and lasted until DOS-based Windowses were finally killed off by Windows XP.

Ah yes, that rings a bell. VXDs spun off from the Linear Executables at some point, which also were used by 32-Bit OS/2.
They are the modern counterparts of the old New Executables (NE) used in 16-Bit OS/2 and 16-Bit Windows.
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Linear_Executable

Edit: My apologies for my English again. Not sure if I got the wording right. 😅

There was an update to half a dozen or so core system files in win3.1 binging it to Win3.11. Packaging wasn't changed though. And to those that don't know this is NOT MS Windows for Workgroups 3.11. That's a different product for use with 386 and above cpus and "Enhanced Mode" was removed.. A lot of built in programs are 16 bit though like the TELNET and FTP clients. I use them on my 286/12 MS Windows 3.1 installation. I get pissed off when a Vogons member say they have an issue with MS Windows 3.11 but it in fact MS Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Rant over. Carry on....

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2020-12-01, 16:23:

I do indeed have earlier drivers, on the original floppy disks...but I don't have access to them at the moment (they're in another city). My drivers are likely from mid 1992. I would think even earlier ones exist, as the mach8 was a 1991 product.

I remember there being performance issues with some of the later drivers. They were supposed to be faster, yet somehow slower.

Just a little followup on this in case anyone cares, I did read my copy of the original Graphics Ultra manual and it mentions nothing about the ATi drivers being 386 only, or 286s needing to use 8514/A drivers. I also located the original floppy disks, and they are definitely from 1992 and I am 100% sure they predate FlexDesk. Hopefully the disks are still readable. I'll try to image the disks and post them here...they are 1.2mb 5.25", so it won't be straight forward.

Thank you! 🙂👍

Okay, I read the disks. They're still good.

I saw there's a folder for GEM on one of the disks too. I checked the manual. There are GEM drivers. It doesn't mention if the drivers are for the VGAWonder or the Ultra section of the card. It also doesn't mention if they're 256 colour or not.

It also might be possible to find earlier drivers (v1.o-1.2) if you search specifically for the 8514 Ultra, which predates the Graphics Ultra by I think about a year and should use the same driver set (it's the same except no VGA Wonder chip).

I see claims on the internets that 8514 Ultra was a 1992 card. It's wrong. The Mach32 cards came out in 1992. From what I recall 8514 Ultra was a late 1990 card, or perhaps early 1991. The Graphics Ultra/ Vantage should have come out later in 1991.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-11-29, 14:22:

Hi, not sure if I can help, but.. […]
Show full quote

Hi, not sure if I can help, but..

Yes, Super VGA is possible on Windows 3.1 in a 286 PC running in Standard Mode.
However, it is up to the driver to support a 286.
Or more precisely, use normal 16-Bit *.drv files instead of *.386 files (old type VXDs).
The default 800 by 600 pixel driver requires a 386 and Enhanced Mode.
Some early SVGA cards had 16-Bit compatible drivers which worked in Real-Mode even, on Windows 2.x or 3.0.
Such as the Paradise Professional VGA (PVGA, WDC90cxx series)..

Standard Mode is an operation mode of the Windows kernal.
True Standard Mode uses krnl286.exe and the original Protected Mode that was introduced with the 80286 CPU..
(On a 386+ PC, krnl386.exe is used. )
Nowadays, we call it 16-Bit Protected Mode.
On a 286, it theoretical has an virtual address space of 1GB, but Windows 3.1 doesn't use it (OS/2 version 1.x did) .

Edit: In theory, it would be possible to use a generic Windows VESA VBE driver on a 286, if it existed, and use the VBE BIOS..
Maybe the retro community can assemble something like this in the future. The Windows 3.1x SDK has sample code for this, if memory serves.

Alternatively, you can make your 286 more compatible by loading EMU386.
It emulates certain 32-Bit instructions of the 386..
However, it depends on the software whether it works or not.
It helped me to run some games, however, so it is no vaporware.
Re: Timeline of MS-DOS for NEC PC98 and more

Last, but not least, some MakeIt! 486 upgrade chips could be used to make tbibgs more compatible.

I am absolutely amazed people like you know these things this far out.

Windows 3.1x Standard mode (286), is the standard. Even Calmira works with that.

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2021-09-25, 06:06:

Okay, I read the disks. They're still good.

W31-62B.DR_ is corrupted and will not install, have tested on multiple PCs and CF cards - are you able to provide a redump of disk 3?

If I redump, is there an easy way of determining the integrity of the file without resorting to an installation procedure?

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2023-10-11, 06:50:

If I redump, is there an easy way of determining the integrity of the file without resorting to an installation procedure?

Windows 3.1 doesn't care in the slightest if the hardware is present while installing, as long as there is an OEMSETUP.INF file present. This makes it easy to verify integrity with emulators if doing it on hardware is too time-consuming. Running SETUP.EXE via DOS with a corrupt file will cancel the install with no option to choose an alternate path:

Within Windows 3.1 itself, it will give the option to skip the file:

EDIT: Since I did my initial testing of these drivers with the VGA Wonder files, I've also tested the mach8 files and ULTRA640.DR_ and ULTRABIG.DR_ are corrupted.

Okay. I’m I’ll try to look into it today.

Probably around ‘93 or ‘94 these 5.25” disks were transferred to 3.5”, but unfortunately there were written over at some point.

I did the following:

expand W31-62B.DR_ W31-62B.DRV
expand ULTRABIG.DR_ ULTRABIG.DRV

Both got expanded without errors.
Then ran SETUP.EXE in DOS to install them - both installed fine.

However, when trying to run Windows, it fails with error message - unable to load W31-62B.DRV
ULTRABIG.DRV seems to work... No, when configured for the mode that actually uses ULTRABIG.DRV, Windows hangs on startup.

Obviously EXPAND.EXE doesn't verify integrity of files being expanded, and can produce a corrupt file.
SETUP.EXE, on the other hand, does the verify.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-10-24, 12:01:

I did the following: […]
Show full quote

I did the following:

expand W31-62B.DR_ W31-62B.DRV
expand ULTRABIG.DR_ ULTRABIG.DRV

Both got expanded without errors.
Then ran SETUP.EXE in DOS to install them - both installed fine.

However, when trying to run Windows, it fails with error message - unable to load W31-62B.DRV
ULTRABIG.DRV seems to work...

Obviously EXPAND.EXE doesn't verify integrity of files being expanded, and can produce a corrupt file.
SETUP.EXE, on the other hand, does the verify.

Would the files here be any good - http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/chst-win- … _W31/index.html - PS: 7-Zip can read the error in the @Anonymous Coward copy

PC Hoarder Patrol wrote on 2023-10-24, 12:53:

Would the files here be any good - http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/chst-win- … _W31/index.html

That's April 3, 1992 release, which supports the following accelerator ("ULTRA") modes:

ATI ULTRA 1024x768 Normal 16/256 colors
ATI ULTRA 1024x768 Small Fonts 16/256 colors
ATI ULTRA 800x600 16/256 colors
ATI ULTRA 640x480 16/256 colors

I can't try them on a 286, but they are working fine on a 386+ in Standard mode.
So, it's possible to use 800x600 - a mode the original IBM 8514/A lacks.

The files from @Anonymous Coward are Sept 2, 1992 release, with more accelerator modes:

ATI Win 3.1 ULTRA 1280x1024 16
ATI Win 3.1 ULTRA 1024x768 16/256 Normal
ATI Win 3.1 ULTRA 1024x768 16/256 Small
ATI Win 3.1 ULTRA 800x600 16/256
ATI Win 3.1 ULTRA 640x480 16/256
ATI Win 3.1 ULTRA 1024x768 Crystal Fonts

Again, I don't know about 286, but I've just run it on a 386+ in Standard mode, in 1280x1024 with all its flickery interlace.
So, another mode that the original IBM 8514/A lacks.

The drivers I mentioned earlier:
May 7, 1993
July 26, 1994
are 386 Enhanced mode only.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-10-24, 12:01:

I did the following: […]
Show full quote

I did the following:

expand W31-62B.DR_ W31-62B.DRV
expand ULTRABIG.DR_ ULTRABIG.DRV

Both got expanded without errors.

Thanks for pointing this out! This helped answer the lingering question I had about W31-55B.DR_ and W31-72B.DR_ with relation to the already expanded DRV files in August 21st, 1992 release of the VGA Wonder drivers, they are an exact match. W31-62B.DR_ from the upload by @Anonymous Coward matches until hex offset 1013E, where it significantly diverges. I'm pretty sure that it's due to corruption of the file, as text strings from this point are very visibly corrupted with random characters. It would be great to know if there is any practical difference between the two copies, given that the BBS release of the September 2nd, 1992 mach8 drivers contains VGA Wonder drivers that are a mix of the April 10th, 1992 release with an April 20th, 1992 modification of W31-62B.DR_. The April 22th, 1992 release of the mach8 drivers also contain the same VGA Wonder drivers as the September 2nd release - I don't remember where I found that version exactly, I've dug through roughly 50 shovelware CDs looking for generic 286-compatible drivers and have organised every video driver version I've come across, including those that require a 386.

I'm pretty sure that Anonymous Coward's copy is explicitly designed for the ATI Graphics Ultra, seeing as the 800x600x256 mode for the VGA Wonder driver included in the September 2nd mach8 BBS release requires 1MB of DRAM while the August 21st, 1992 VGA Wonder drivers allows 800x600x256 with 512KB of DRAM.

Anyway, it's time to put an end with posting speculation without any hard evidence, though I do appreciate that Grzyb has been accurate with the speculation. Why this happens around here when it comes to the 286 specifically really boggles me, seeing as every other CPU class up until LGA775 gets enough attention with proper testing methodologies.

I have been working on and off for the past few weeks compiling extensive benchmark data (Winbench 3.11, WinTach 1.2, WindSock 3.30, WUBench, WinTune 2.0 - Speedy and ByteWB also work on a 286, but Speedy is too CPU-constrained with its benchmark of opening eight windows simultaneously and ByteWB is completely redundant) with my Protech PM286 with a Harris 25Mhz clocked at 24Mhz, i287XL running at 27Mhz, 16MB of 50ns RAM and my ISA SVGA video card collection running at a bus speed of 8Mhz on all supported 256-colour and high-colour modes along with generic 640x480x16 VGA and I should be a few weeks away from posting the full data. This post from elianda was extremely insightful and definitely helped with finding interesting performance curves across some of the video cards I have tested that I would have never seen if I stuck to 640x480x256.

There's a few things holding me back from dropping the full data now - I have a batch of cards coming from the US that should be here by the end of this week including one that I'm 99% certain will work, and more importantly my initial testing of finding 286-compatible drivers started from the latest drivers I could find and going back until I found one that worked, and in the interest of archiving I want to verify that all drivers that I have found work properly rather than throwing it over the fence for someone else to try - for an extreme example, I've found eleven generic ET4000AX drivers including two that were released during Windows 3.1 betas, (a third from October 1991 is known to exist due to it being mentioned in the readme from the December 1991 drivers, but I haven't located it yet) and have only tested the December 1994 and March 1993 drivers as those were listed on the DOS Days website, and being one of the earliest cards I tested I decided to be cautious and start with the earlier drivers. A simple run of Winbench should be sufficient for verification, since it also includes a way to verify that I have installed the drivers properly.

An important thing when it comes to the ATI Graphics Ultra is that the EEPROM settings by default will set the co-processor to auto-detect what data bus speed it should run at, and it will run with a 8-bit data bus speed if it's installed on any 16-bit CPU. If you set it to explicitly use a 16-bit data bus speed instead, the BitBLT performance will literally double without any negative side effects to the VGA Wonder core:

Finally, a rather amusing/sad note is that out of the three Avance Logic ALG2101 drivers I found, two of them have a Windows-based installer where their INF files explicitly have a config line that says Logical [Allow80286] := Y directly below a line that says Logical [Allow808x] := N but they don't work on a 286.

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-12-24, 18:59:

It would appear that there are NO GUI accelerators with drivers that work in Win3.1 Standard mode. A shame really

ATI mach8, Avance Logic ALG2101, Cirrus Logic GD5429, S3 911, Tseng ET4000/W32i and Western Digital WD90c31 all say hi. The Microsoft Windows 3.1 Resource Kit (display drivers disk 1, disk 2) contains ATI mach8 and S3 911 drivers that work on a 286, though the ATI mach8 driver only contains the standard IBM 8514/A resolutions. Comparing the ET4000/W32i results to my ET4000AX TC6058 I don't really see what it's supposed to be accelerating.
The S3 924 is 99% guaranteed to work since the latest 286-compatible drivers I found for the S3 911 works for the S3 924 when emulated via 86Box, I'll know this for certain very soon and I'm really hoping that there is a relative performance improvement that is consistent with running both cards on faster CPUs. My PCI ATI mach32 and PCI Cirrus Logic GD5434 both work with 286-compatible drivers, but I don't have ISA variants to confirm this with. The mach32 will use the 1992 mach8 drivers though the performance difference is massive compared to the latest mach32 drivers, at least on testing with a IDT Winchip C6 at 100x2.5 with Enhanced Mode:

Similar difference with the GD5434 and using the v1.1 GD5422/24 drivers on the same system:

Grzyb wrote on 2020-12-02, 23:57:

CL22V143.ZIP is described as "GD5422/GD5424", ie. non-accelerated... ugly!

Did this for shits and giggles, results for the latest 5422/24 and 5426/28 drivers since the GD5434 will happily use them:

Though that's getting a bit off-topic, however it does show a huge difference in two different GD5422/24 drivers.

My PCI mach64 GX will set the resolution when using the mach8 drivers, but will freeze the PC before displaying anything. Despite claims on the DOS Days website that the mach32 and mach64 GX have a VGA Wonder-compatible VGA controller they absolutely do not work with the VGA Wonder drivers.

Hopefully the OP is still around, since I might as well give an actual answer:

AngieAndretti wrote on 2020-11-29, 08:40:

Recently acquired an IBM 5170 8MHz 286 PC. It came with an 8-bit "Video Seven" VGA card, which I immediately upgraded to a Diamond Speedstar Pro with the Cirrus Logic GD5426 chipset and 1MB video memory.

The 286 (and Win3.1 in real mode) is a bit of uncharted territory for me so I need to ask what may be a dumb question: Is this supposed to work?

Yes.

Anyway, I did say that hard evidence is important so I'll drop benchmark results at 640x480x16 and 640x480x256 of everyone's favourite cheated benchmarks for what I currently have and the drivers that I've confirmed as working for the sake of bus-proofing. The OEMSETUP.INF for the Avance Logic ALG2101 was modified as for some reason it included the entire Windows 3.1 installation in it. Enjoy. Expect a bigger dump of drivers and benchmarks soon(tm)

EDIT: forgot to mention the Microsoft Windows 3.1 Resource Kit disks