Other things can break, including the potential that your installation is missing a file or corrupt

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vSqyZxbyHww

I heard it mentioned here before that you can use a RAM drive to "eat" most of available memory thereby decreasing the memory visible to Windows. XMSDSK's docs report that XMSDSK can support RAM drives up to 2GB. You can find a link to it at https://dosprograms.info.tt/indexall.htm under the Utilities section. Also, I think HIMEM.SYS can limit the amount of supported RAM, but I don't remember the right parameter. Type "help himem.sys" on the DOS command prompt for more information, and you can open "CONFIG.SYS" in a text editor and add the proper switch and value.

AM_PM wrote on 2025-10-24, 21:56:

My first post, hopefully in the right place. I've come across this forum several times before and it's great to join! […]
Show full quote

My first post, hopefully in the right place. I've come across this forum several times before and it's great to join!

So basically, I am trying to get Windows 3.1 run on an Atom netbook that has 2GB RAM. To simplify the process, I used Virtual PC 2007 on the same machine to install MS-DOS 6.22 and Win 3.1 into a virtual machine, take the resulting .VHD and write the image into an SD card using Rufus and run it from the card.

Without making any changes: the netbook boots into DOS fine, and mem tells me a total memory of 65,150K. But it fails to boot Win 3.1: at the logo screen after a few seconds it returns to the prompt and says overflow. It does boot fine into Standard mode (win /s) but I'd like to get it working in proper Enhanced mode. After some research suggesting it is down to the high memory, I made changes to system.ini by adding MaxPhysPage and MaxFileCache values to limit the memory, but these made no changes at all.

Some more research led me to HIMEMX from the FreeDOS project. I put the himem.exe in C: and added it to the config.sys replacing himem.sys. Trying to start Windows now would give the error PageOverCommit is too large. Trying to fix this in system.ini with PageOverCommit as =4, =3, =2, would say the same error. Changing it to =1 would give the error Insufficient memory or address space to initialize Windows in 386 enhanced mode. Forget about Standard mode, it does not boot at all with HIMEMX present instead of the original HIMEM.

Further research led me to add a /max memory value to HIMEMX in config.sys to limit the allowed memory, and I tried several values. Now finally, Windows 3.1 does boot to the logo screen, but after a few seconds returns back to the DOS prompt empty without any notices or errors.

As a final experiment, I tried Windows 3.0 instead (again from a VM install to an SD): it booted fine in Real mode, but in Enhanced mode it hangs at the logo screen, and Standard mode immediately makes the whole machine hard reboot.

And now I'm lost. Does anyone know of any ways to get Windows in Enhanced mode to work?

I haven't been able to start it in protected mode yet, standard mode works for me too.
Omores managed to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbXkvM3b2Qg&t=184s

Some ideas that come to mind..
- use an older himem.sys with 16 MB limit (MS-DOS 5) rather than 64 MB limit (MS-DOS 6.x, Windows 3.1x)
- try himem.sys from Windows 9x (MS-DOS 7.x)
- try QEMM 7 or higher, it'll switch to V86 and install its own himem.sys replacement if no himem.sys is installed
- try IBM PC-DOS 2000 or 7.x, it has a newer himem.sys that's internally different to MS-DOS himem.sys

PS: Using V86 memory managers such as EMM386, QEMM, 386Max etc has the advantage that the physical A20 Gate nolonger matters.
In V86 mode, A20 Gate is being emulated/under control of the Virtual Machine Monitor (EMM386 etc).

That might be useful, because newer PCs nolonger have an A20 Gate.
Not that it matters for MS-DOS 6.x itself, it barely cares about the A20 state, but more sophisticated applications might care

Btw, generally speaking, running MemMaker might help to optimize memory for Windows 3.1x, as well.
It sets up EMM386 correctly and configures it for Windows.

Edit: About running Windows 3.0 in 386 Enchanted-Mode..
Please make sure that WINA20.386 is in root directory of your boot drive.
The file is stored on Disk 1 of MS-DOS 5, I think. Or maybe another one.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-10-25, 04:14:

Some ideas that come to mind.. - use an older himem.sys with 16 MB limit (MS-DOS 5) rather than 64 MB limit (MS-DOS 6.x, Windows […]
Show full quote

Some ideas that come to mind..
- use an older himem.sys with 16 MB limit (MS-DOS 5) rather than 64 MB limit (MS-DOS 6.x, Windows 3.1x)
- try himem.sys from Windows 9x (MS-DOS 7.x)
- try QEMM 7 or higher, it'll switch to V86 and install its own himem.sys replacement if no himem.sys is installed
- try IBM PC-DOS 2000 or 7.x, it has a newer himem.sys that's internally different to MS-DOS himem.sys

PS: Using V86 memory managers such as EMM386, QEMM, 386Max etc has the advantage that the physical A20 Gate nolonger matters.
In V86 mode, A20 Gate is being emulated/under control of the Virtual Machine Monitor (EMM386 etc).

That might be useful, because newer PCs nolonger have an A20 Gate.
Not that it matters for MS-DOS 6.x itself, it barely cares about the A20 state, but more sophisticated applications might care

Btw, generally speaking, running MemMaker might help to optimize memory for Windows 3.1x, as well.
It sets up EMM386 correctly and configures it for Windows.

Edit: About running Windows 3.0 in 386 Enchanted-Mode..
Please make sure that WINA20.386 is in root directory of your boot drive.
The file is stored on Disk 1 of MS-DOS 5, I think. Or maybe another one.

The file is on disk 1 of MS-DOS 5, I think. Or maybe on another one.
I'll try this, I've tried the others, no luck...

Thanks for all the answers. Well I got it to work, but not how you'd expect it!

I tried the AHCIFIX method from Omores's video but it didn't work. From what I remember, it at least got into the logo boot screen but it hung. I tried taking HIMEM.SYS from MS-DOS 5.00 and putting it into 6.22, I tried a newer one from a Win 98SE boot disk... I think I also booted with WINA20.386 (it already existed in my 6.22 but I got the one from 5.00 also), no luck yet again. I installed QEMM but didn't work with that either (although I'm unsure if I set it up correctly?). Only the XMSDSK mentioned here I did not try out.

But finally I got Windows 3.1 Enhanced to boot by simply using MS-DOS 5.00. I installed 3.1 on that on the virtual machine, transferred the VHD over to the netbook, and it booted absolutely fine vanilla without changing anything! Unless I made a mistake somewhere, it seems that MS-DOS 6.22 is being problematic.

I was going to try PC-DOS 7.x first as you (Jo22) mentioned but the only reason I didn't is because the download from WinWorld gave me .XDF files that Virtual PC 2007 doesn't read (it only does .IMG), and this is why I went with MS-DOS 5.00 instead. Out of curiosity, after I finally got it to work, I tried Windows 3.1 on DR DOS 6.0 to see if it will work. It was a success also on DR DOS, but not in Standard mode as it returned to the prompt with an error message which I forgot. As for Windows 3.0... it still did not work whether MS-DOS or DR DOS. In fact, it doesn't even work on the virtual machine I installed it on! I don't know what's wrong with it, it just hangs on the boot screen or in Standard mode hard reboots, but otherwise works fine in Real mode. It would be nice to see a cause and fix for 3.0 as well.

So anyone else facing issues with Windows 3.1 (like you DarthSun), try a different DOS version.

Windows 3.1 is so speed and memory friendly that it works with even a Windows 98SE HIMEM.SYS. and 4GB of ram. just do not use any second hand memory managers. QEMM works good. Only PageOverCommit is needed for large memory machines and it will tell you at startup that. So the problem lies somewhere else.

Well has anyone been able to find a solution for Windows 3.0 in Standard or Enhanced? Someone else once had this same problem that it only ran in Real but it was not solved properly Windows 3.0 refuses to run in standard or enhanced mode. Booting in Enhanced with PageOverCommit set to either 1 or 4 didn't help.

Hi, I don’t know for sure but I would be surprised if that's the case - I mean, why should anybody care?
I don’t mean to be unfriendly, -I'm glad for my copy of Windows 3-, but Windows 3.0 literally was obsolete by the day Windows 3.1 was out. 😟
Environments such as DESQView/X or OS/2 2.11 supported Windows 3.1x but not 3.0 anymore.
By the mid-90s, nobody talked about Windows 3.0 anymore. It was history, just like Windows/386.

Even plain Windows 3.1 had been largely replaced by copies of WfW 3.11 by then.
(I was one of the few weirdo users holding on to original v3.10 on a 286 PC.)
The memory managment of Windows 3.1x became more compatible and forgiving, supported multiple memory APIs.
Even Microsoft encouraged using Windows 3.1 over 3.0, I vaguely remember.

I vaguely remember this because of the Visual Basic description (box sticker? manual?).
VB 1.0 was released in ca. 1991 and technically pre-dated Windows 3.1,
but nevertheless Microsoft recommended using Windows 3.1 instead.
Or so I remember.. It's been a while. Maybe it was mentioned in a third-party book also.

Anyway, Windows 3.0 isn't exactly a smaller, less power hungry version of Windows 3.1 that’s easy to please.
It's much more primitive, really. And thus causes various headaches on modern hardware.
Windows 3.1x was a vast improvment developed after Windows 3.0 turned out to be a success (to the surprise of many).

Windows 3.1x got a much bigger API, more compatibility features and some hand optimizations in ASM.
Windows 3.0 was strictly being written in C language, which made it slow.
By contrast, Windows 3.1x basically was a modenized fix-up with many workarounds and extras.
It was cleaned up, overhowled version of Windows 3, so to say.
The Protected-Mode extenders of Windows 3.1x are better than the older ones in Windows 3.0, I think.

What's good about Windows 3.0 is Real-Mode kernal, though.
It has several neat features:
- EMS support (256 KB page frame)
- Windows 2.0 application/driver compatibility (Windows 2 colour palette, applications can do memory arithmethics)
- behaves like a DOS applications and thus can run in DOS boxes
- plain 8086 compatibility (VGA color driver uses 286 instructions, was patched at vcfed forums)

If it has to be Windows 3.0, I would recommend trying out Windows 3.0 MME.
It was an intermediate step between Windows 3.0a and Windows 3.10.
It's still lacking the new Windows 3.1 APIs, but it was made at least explicitly with multimedia hardware in mind. Fast 386/486 PCs.
So maybe it can cope better with more recent hardware configurations.

Edit: Or to put it this way: The fix to many Windows 3.0 problems was to install Windows 3.1 on top of the current Windows 3.0 installation.
Windows Setup would recognize an older Windows and perform an upgrade without loosing settings and program groups.

Edited.

Yeah I understand, 3.1 did improve a ton of things. Wave sound output, TrueType, the icons, stability even (unhandled exceptions don't crash the entire system) and what you've mentioned too.

But it's a little unfortunate that it got overshadowed because of 3.1, don't you think? Windows 3.0 had a massive launch in 1990 (the full launch event video is still 'lost media'!) and quickly became very popular, it was the start point of Windows domination.

It was a revolutionary product, followed by an evolutionary product which was Windows 3.1. Same as Windows 95 (with 98 as evolution), Windows Vista (7 being the evolution) and Windows 8 (8.1 being the evolution). But look at the amount of grand attention Windows 95 gets. To me, Windows 3.0 deserves almost as much, and more than 3.1 because that was the improved follower.

That's why I would love to get 3.0 running too, the original charm!

AM_PM wrote on 2025-11-10, 16:22:

Yeah I understand, 3.1 did improve a ton of things. Wave sound output, TrueType, the icons, stability even (unhandled exceptions […]
Show full quote

Yeah I understand, 3.1 did improve a ton of things. Wave sound output, TrueType, the icons, stability even (unhandled exceptions don't crash the entire system) and what you've mentioned too.

But it's a little unfortunate that it got overshadowed because of 3.1, don't you think? Windows 3.0 had a massive launch in 1990 (the full launch event video is still 'lost media'!) and quickly became very popular, it was the start point of Windows domination.

It was a revolutionary product, followed by an evolutionary product which was Windows 3.1. Same as Windows 95 (with 98 as evolution), Windows Vista (7 being the evolution) and Windows 8 (8.1 being the evolution). But look at the amount of grand attention Windows 95 gets. To me, Windows 3.0 deserves almost as much, and more than 3.1 because that was the improved follower.

That's why I would love to get 3.0 running too, the original charm!

Everyone here is drawn to his/her particular "charm" for particular reasons; no judgment for that here. But before things get too far off-topic, be prepared that some may take issue with your rose-tinted portrayals of the different versions relative to their "more useful" successors. In fact, computing has always been a long evolution; elevating ANY version of Windows to "revolutionary" status (particularly if the criteria is something as arbitrary as relative market success) is a surefire way to draw out the apologists for Amiga & OS/2, and that would be just a start.

AM_PM wrote on 2025-11-10, 16:22:

Yeah I understand, 3.1 did improve a ton of things. Wave sound output, TrueType, the icons, stability even (unhandled exceptions don't crash the entire system) and what you've mentioned too.

What shall I say? All of that simply really mattered to the users. 🤷‍♂️
Professionals could not use Windows 3.0 in productive ways without having Adobe Type Manager (ATM) installed, for example.
Windows 3.1x added TrueType support, like System 7 on Macintoshs did.

AM_PM wrote on 2025-11-10, 16:22:

But it's a little unfortunate that it got overshadowed because of 3.1, don't you think? Windows 3.0 had a massive launch in 1990 (the full launch event video is still 'lost media'!) and quickly became very popular, it was the start point of Windows domination.

As someone who lived through these days, I think that it was because of multimedia at the time.

In 1991 to 1994, CD-ROM drives and things like Photo CD, CD-i, Video CD and Sound Blaster cards got more popular.

Video for Windows and QuickTime appeared, too.

MPEG boards, video grabbers, TV tuner cards and Xing MPEG Player were a thing, too.

(Btw: In the 1992 movie "Sneakers", there's a scene in which the popular cyan "S3" color scheme can be spotted
when the guys sit on the PC monitor to watch the signal of the analogue video camera in a Windows application.
Maybe it was Windows 3.0 MME or Windows 3.1, thus. The S3 drivers were known to use that colour scheme in 3.1x era.)

Interest in 32-Bit applications and windows graphics accelerators (GDI accelerators) increased, too.

And Windows 3.1x could support that.

Not only was Win32s extension available as a testbed to developers who wanted to write Windows NT applications,
but Windows 3.1x also had a lesser known WinMem32 API for flat memory model.

That being said, there already was the Win386 extender by Watcom before.
So specially written 32-Bit Windows 3.0 applications for 386/486 PCs existed before Windows 3.1x.
Windows 3.1x made 32-Bit more mainstream, though.

AM_PM wrote on 2025-11-10, 16:22:

It was a revolutionary product, followed by an evolutionary product which was Windows 3.1. Same as Windows 95 (with 98 as evolution), Windows Vista (7 being the evolution) and Windows 8 (8.1 being the evolution).

Agreed! 😄

Btw: In retrospect, Windows 98 was kind of cool because it appeared in Digimon TV show, I think. Or the other way round. ;)
It can be spotted in the movie, I think. Probably the Japanese PC-98 version..
Back in the day, by turn of the century, the Windows 98 GUI was just the common Windows experience, I guess.

So it happened to happen that comics and cartoons showed that to make things look more legit, I guess.
The Macintosh's System 7 or Mac OS 8 GUI also appeared often, I think. But that's another story.

Edit: To my defense, I had a younger sister by this time.
So I was, err, forced to go through "childhood" twice basically.
She owned the TV after school, basically. ;)

AM_PM wrote on 2025-11-10, 16:22:

But look at the amount of grand attention Windows 95 gets. To me, Windows 3.0 deserves almost as much, and more than 3.1 because that was the improved follower.

Windows 95 was a huge phenomenon in pop culture, that can't be compared. It's impact was next level, like it or not. Even good old Windows 3.1 paled in comparison, it was overshadowed by Win 95 almost instantly.

Again, I was one of the few who held on to Windows 3.10 back then.
My father had Windows 95, I remained loyal to Windows 3.1 on my 286.
It had a friendlier face, I think. I loved playing Hover on my father's PC, though! XD

AM_PM wrote on 2025-11-10, 16:22:

That's why I would love to get 3.0 running too, the original charm!

I feel similar about Windows 2.03 or Windows/386! ^^
It was the first Windows which had a portfolio of real, commercial applications being written for it.
We also have a physical copy of Windows 2.03 in the house; with box, 5,25" floppies and manual..
It was the Windows I loved to play "Klotz" on in the 1990s..

That being said, I value Windows 3.0 for its relationship with OS/2 (WLO, Windows Applets) and Real-Mode compatibility.
Because Real-Mode format allows writing small, super fast Windows 3 applications that also work like a charm on Windows 3.1x.

In additon, it's fascinating to see all the different common dialogs on Windows 3.1x!
The opening dialog (for saving/opening files) of a Windows 1/2, 3.0, 3.1, WfW and Win32s application look all different each time.

Edit: I really recommend trying out Windows 3.0 MME, if possible.
It's still the old GUI, but it is more compatible with Windows games and multimedia in general.
It also has optimized graphics drivers and newer system files.
Bugs of Windows 3.0 or 3.0a might be fixed by that point, who knows? :)

PS: About HimemX.. I really recommend using the original himem.sys/emm386 that came with Windows 3.x or one of the popular 90s era memory managers such as QEMM, 386Max etc.
They provide a Windows compatible himem.sys alternative, provide GEMMIS API and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMM386#Overview