I'm sure Windows 95 can work with HGC, but not sure about the exact procedure...
Try to upgrade from Windows 3.11 with the following driver, perhaps?
http://files.mpoli.fi/hardware/DISPLAY/HERCULES/HERC311.ZIP

I did this once. By accident. Back in '95? I didn't take it too seriously... so I don't even remember what I did. I don't think it was via upgrade using the RTM disk. I think I hacked it in directly. But I still do have the upgrade disk. So maybe?? But I think upgrade allowing it is unlikely.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2024-06-13, 14:18:

I did this once. By accident. Back in '95? I didn't take it too seriously... so I don't even remember what I did. I don't think it was via upgrade using the RTM disk. I think I hacked it in directly. But I still do have the upgrade disk. So maybe?? But I think upgrade allowing it is unlikely.

I tried to install directly Windows 95 first version (RTM, no OSRs) and just before loading the graphical installer environment it stopped with error that it cannot find VGA adapter, which seems logical considering the official requirements. So I think the only way is to upgrade an existing 3.1 installation.
Or can you think of any other way?

I find it weird that I cannot find any useful information on the current internet. 😀 It's like almost nobody tried this.

Grzyb wrote on 2024-06-13, 13:46:

I'm sure Windows 95 can work with HGC, but not sure about the exact procedure...
Try to upgrade from Windows 3.11 with the following driver, perhaps?
http://files.mpoli.fi/hardware/DISPLAY/HERCULES/HERC311.ZIP

Maybe the upgrade was not supposed to leave me with a non working system with disk error? Something went wrong in the first place? I'll try some other ways of upgrading because I already tried this twice with the same results.
And I'll also try with this driver installed on 3.1 before the upgrade.

GeorgeMan wrote on 2024-06-13, 15:41:

Maybe the upgrade was not supposed to leave me with a non working system with disk error? Something went wrong in the first place?

That 528 MB disk works in LBA mode, which doesn't really make sense...
I think it may interfere with the upgrade process...
Try to configure it as NORMAL/CHS, perhaps?

Grzyb wrote on 2024-06-13, 17:23:

That 528 MB disk works in LBA mode, which doesn't really make sense... I think it may interfere with the upgrade process... Try […]
Show full quote

GeorgeMan wrote on 2024-06-13, 15:41:

Maybe the upgrade was not supposed to leave me with a non working system with disk error? Something went wrong in the first place?

That 528 MB disk works in LBA mode, which doesn't really make sense...
I think it may interfere with the upgrade process...
Try to configure it as NORMAL/CHS, perhaps?

I second this.

Also, I think 528 MB is quite on the borderline between CHS and Large/LBA.

It's still close enough to CHS to work fine as traditional CHS medium, but close enough to LBA to make trouble and to confuse LBA aware software.

Also, normally, Windows 9x FDISK would offer LBA support to disks with 512 MB onwards.
The question is whether it goes by 1000 or 1024 here (for "Byte").

Do you wish to enable large disk support (Y/N)

Using an 1GB or 2GB CF card would be safer. Or 4GB, because FAT16 can't be that large. So LBA or FAT32 arw being assumed automatically.

I'll also try with a smaller hard drive tomorrow or during weekend and let you know, thanks!
And also with the other driver provided here.

You were right, the first disk error was exactly due to HDD setup in BIOS, as described above. I've put a larger disk and now it's gone.

Windows 3.1 & 3.11 & 95 get installed normally now.
BUT I now get the same fatal error after the first reboot when it tries to load graphical environment to finish the Windows 95 upgrade installation.

I've tried upgrading 3.1 to 95 RTM, 3.1 to 95A, 3.11 to 95 RTM and 3.11 to 95A. It's always the same fatal error.
If I put in a VGA card, it finishes installation and when on desktop, at the Display Properties window, when I install the HGC driver, I get the following Warning:

After shutdown, change back to HGC card, I always get the fatal error again. I tried with the driver at the link provided above.
Trying to boot at safe mode results in a blinking cursor.

Really confused here and spent a lot of hours on this already 😒

Hi there, I think it's normal that the Hercules card doesn't show up in device manager.
Windows 3.1 display drivers use system.ini rather than Windows registry, among other things.

And they usually don't feature things like change of resolutions and colour depth.
To do something like that, Windows 3.1 drivers shipped with a separate utility that either appeared in a Program Manager group or in Control Panel.

Speaking under correction, it's been a while since I've upgraded to Windows 95 from Windows 3.1x.
So I'll have to do some testing, maybe over weekend.

Upgrade works as intended, be it with the floppy version of 95 or CD version.
But I cannot make it work with HGC. 😒

Installing 95 from scratch doesn't work because it wants to see a VGA adapter in the first place.

If anyone has any other idea I shall try.

Perhaps some special "UPGRADE" variant of Windows 95 is necessary?
I vaguely recall there were distinct "UPGRADE" variants, where the primary feature was retaining existing settings.
On the other hand, OEM variants were designed to be factory-preinstalled on virgin machines - without caring about any prior settings, of course.

Also, have you tried "Logo=0" in MSDOS.SYS ?
Windows 95 normally uses the graphics mode set by the installed driver, but the logo is fixed at 320 x 200 x 256 - and this needs VGA...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywkwcpEcp7o

It's possible to install the EGA311 driver without upgrading from 3.xx...
But what exactly version is that 95 ?
Clearly it's from 1996 - does it mean some OSR ?
Or is it later than 1995 because it's Russian version?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iycWHVU_L-M

It's also possible to upgrade from 3.1 to the 1995 version...

I have built a driver disk to use the CGA driver from Windows 3.0 with Windows 95.
It just was done by copying the proper files to the disk and to edit a .inf file that has been accepted by Windows 95 control panel.
I got 640x200 monochrome. However, in several dialog boxes i could not reach the OK button except by pressing the tabulator key a few times.
And, yes, it is more than 25 years over...

Disruptor wrote on 2024-06-14, 17:21:

I have built a driver disk to use the CGA driver from Windows 3.0 with Windows 95. It just was done by copying the proper files […]
Show full quote

I have built a driver disk to use the CGA driver from Windows 3.0 with Windows 95.
It just was done by copying the proper files to the disk and to edit a .inf file that has been accepted by Windows 95 control panel.
I got 640x200 monochrome. However, in several dialog boxes i could not reach the OK button except by pressing the tabulator key a few times.
And, yes, it is more than 25 years over...

To answer OP about how, this is what I would try -- build your own driver inf around it. What you say is kind of what I remember.

Yes, I agree on what you are saying -- not everything was legible. Even if you get to 720x348, I don't think I could take it seriously. But the really interesting thing about it was in the display properties, Win95 knew it was a mono pixel depth. It was reported correctly.

Yes, even for Windows 3.x at least 640 x 480 is already recommended.
In Windows 95, anything less than 480 pixels vertically is even more painful, as the Taskbar steals some screen space.
But it's possible to get rid of the Taskbar, or even use PROGMAN.EXE as the shell...

Disruptor wrote on 2024-06-14, 17:21:

I have built a driver disk to use the CGA driver from Windows 3.0 with Windows 95. It just was done by copying the proper files […]
Show full quote

I have built a driver disk to use the CGA driver from Windows 3.0 with Windows 95.
It just was done by copying the proper files to the disk and to edit a .inf file that has been accepted by Windows 95 control panel.
I got 640x200 monochrome. However, in several dialog boxes i could not reach the OK button except by pressing the tabulator key a few times.
And, yes, it is more than 25 years over...

Grzyb wrote on 2024-06-14, 14:30:

Perhaps some special "UPGRADE" variant of Windows 95 is necessary? I vaguely recall there were distinct "UPGRADE" variants, wher […]
Show full quote

Perhaps some special "UPGRADE" variant of Windows 95 is necessary?
I vaguely recall there were distinct "UPGRADE" variants, where the primary feature was retaining existing settings.
On the other hand, OEM variants were designed to be factory-preinstalled on virgin machines - without caring about any prior settings, of course.

Also, have you tried "Logo=0" in MSDOS.SYS ?
Windows 95 normally uses the graphics mode set by the installed driver, but the logo is fixed at 320 x 200 x 256 - and this needs VGA...

I'm trying with Win 95 upgrade edition. I also tried by mistake a regular edition and it just threw a message about not being able to upgrade, which was correct.

As far as I can see both of you are talking about CGA but I'm talking about Hercules monochrome. It's a different thing and different driver, isn't it?
I've just tried Logo=0 in MSDOS.SYS aaaand... nope. It didn't make any difference.
I'm about to give up as I don't know how to build an .inf file descriptor.

Maybe I'll just need to find an ATI Wonder card which will convert EGA to TTL out for my monochrome monitor.

Grzyb wrote on 2024-06-14, 20:20:

Yes, even for Windows 3.x at least 640 x 480 is already recommended.
In Windows 95, anything less than 480 pixels vertically is even more painful, as the Taskbar steals some screen space.
But it's possible to get rid of the Taskbar, or even use PROGMAN.EXE as the shell...

I don't mean to sound like a parrot here, but I agree from personal experience.

Running Windows 3 in 640x200 (CGA) is very uncomfy.
In 640x350 it starts to get usable (EGA was sort of a reference in prior Windows 2.x days).
When reaching 400 lines (640x400 Olivetti or PVGA1A in 256c) it looks almost normal.
In 640x480, it looks normal as we know it and most applications fit the screen.
If we go up to 800x600, we have more space "to breathe". DTP and word processing are now fun.

Edit: I tried to get it working, but no vail. I even took down my Win 95 wall clock, because that's were the Win 95 upgrade CD went to. 😁
Anyway, some-when near the end of the upgrade process (from Win 3.1 w/ HGC drivers), Windows 95 Setup *insisted* on me picking my graphics card.
Even when I confirmed to aboard graphics card selection, it did set "Standard VGA" as the setting without my consent.
So after Setup was finished, Windows 95 had used the VGA driver as default. 🙁
After switching to a VGA card, I've even deleted the VGA graphics card in Device Manager and added the Hercules drivers back to SYSTEM.INI.
The end result was a blinking cursor on a black screen after re-boot. No Windows desktop.

Pictures attached (4:3, 2x). I've used PCem v17 and Windows 95 Upgrade (Ger).

I bought an ATi VGA Wonder+, it should do its magic tricks to get 640x400 interlaced (that's gonna be painful) with conversion to TTL mono and it should have Win 95 drivers and appear as a VGA adapter to the OS, so many programs are not gonna complain.

Also, this way the HGC card will go back to the Harris 286/20 with 4MB SIPP ram and Windows 3.1 which natively support it. 😀
It cost a lot and it was not a win for me, but it is what it is.

I'll also test how good the VGA Wonder+ is with a 14" AOC VGA greyscale monitor. 😀

Aside from me waiting the Ati Wonder to arrive, I found this:

Windows 95 drops support for the 80286 Standard mode and the Hercules and CGA display adapters. Trying to install Windows 95 with CGA or Hercules graphics will result in USER.EXE failing to load. EGA display adapters are supported but not included in Windows 95. For example, by upgrading from Windows 3.1x with EGA configured as display adapter, Windows 95 can be brought to use the EGA display driver.

https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95

So, this quote, combined to some of you writing about other modes than Hercules (eg: EGA), makes me Wonder if it is actually possible at all for Windows 95 to operate in pure HGC mode or was it completely dropped?

What do you think?

Jo22 wrote on 2024-06-14, 21:03:

Edit: I tried to get it working, but no vail. I even took down my Win 95 wall clock, because that's were the Win 95 upgrade CD w […]
Show full quote

Edit: I tried to get it working, but no vail. I even took down my Win 95 wall clock, because that's were the Win 95 upgrade CD went to. 😁
Anyway, some-when near the end of the upgrade process (from Win 3.1 w/ HGC drivers), Windows 95 Setup *insisted* on me picking my graphics card.
Even when I confirmed to aboard graphics card selection, it did set "Standard VGA" as the setting without my consent.
So after Setup was finished, Windows 95 had used the VGA driver as default. 🙁
After switching to a VGA card, I've even deleted the VGA graphics card in Device Manager and added the Hercules drivers back to SYSTEM.INI.
The end result was a blinking cursor on a black screen after re-boot. No Windows desktop.

Pictures attached (4:3, 2x). I've used PCem v17 and Windows 95 Upgrade (Ger).

I've just now seen your edited post. Well, that is almost on par with my experience. Thank you.