VOGONS


First post, by Binraider666

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hi all,

Firstly - loving this website, loving dosbox and having much fun so far!

Secondly, onto my question...

I have a lovely old PC-chips motherboard clone (the one which had the fake cache) and a AMD 486 / 120MHZ on it, 32MB ram, and a few other bits and bobs... Having invested a couple of quid on ebay on IDE to SD and IDE to CF adapters instead of using ancient hard drives I was hoping to be able to salvage this old PC.

However, I've had no joy at all with the CF card. The IDE-SD adapter on the other hand, I do at least get as far as being able to FDISK and format the drive. Unfortunately, after installing DOS (I know my old floppies are OK, because they boot to DOS just fine from FDD, and have been recently on other PC's. Including a 2.6GHz Athlon!), the machine has a tendency to hang either at the "Starting MS-DOS" prompt, or if I'm lucky and get as far as a command prompt at all, virtually any file copied onto the drive is corrupt. It's fine if I plug a regular hard drive in instead.

I've heard somewhere that these IDE-SD adapters might not work properly without at least an ATA66 adapter or better - unfortunately I have no (immediate) way to test as my current PC has no IDE ports at all!

Other suggetsions I've had, have been running tools like dd in linux to totally blank the card (and any flags that it might have associated with being removable along with it) to convince the OS it can boot from it, or using RMSysprep (think that one's on Hiren's boot CD somewhere). I got the same results as described above using either method to set up the drive.

Does anyone have any real experience of trying this out, any suggestions on how this might be made to work?? (DOSBox is fab, but sometimes only the real hardware will do!)

Reply 1 of 9, by DonutKing

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

What brand of memory cards are you using?
They are not all created equal.
I've heard of trouble using Kingston brand cards, while I use Sandisk and Transcend and they seem to work ok.

If you are squeamish, don't prod the beach rubble.

Reply 2 of 9, by fronzel

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Generally the IDE to CF adaptors work very well and are not really high tech, so your problem does not need to be with the adaptor at all. When FDISK worked fine good chances the hardware itself is okay or that should already fail. You did not mention how large your CF is. Also you did not mention which version DOS you are using. If Fdisk can kill all partitions then unix can also do not much more for you i fear. My advise would be to try installing like win95 as a test, that should be quite fast with a CF and if that works it is more a software config problem. If win 95 also wont install or run properly then i can only suggest to try a different CF card, a general recommendation would be like a 2 GB card or you may need to partition it. If win95 works then it is probably a problem of your partitioning strategy/DOS version, keep in mind that older DOS versions can not access a bootloader that is beyond the 2 GB limit.

Reply 3 of 9, by Binraider666

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Yep, I'm using Dos 6.22 from floppy. I could try either Win98 or freedos instead too.

The CF card was 4GB Lexar, although the motherboard utterly refuses to see it at all, even when formatted with a 1GB FAT16 partition on my main PC first.

The SD cards are generic 2GB cards from a manufacturer that nobody has heard of (Optima). Seems to work fine when used "as it was originally intended!"

Maybe a better SD card would help, although I'm surprised I got this far as even the "Starting MS-DOS" at all.

Reply 4 of 9, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

The sd cards adapter might be limited to only smaller sd cards. 512Mb or 1Gb. You can try to find out about this.

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 5 of 9, by fronzel

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

hmmm, im not having good memery, but i think DOS 6.22 should support "large disks". Generally speaking as you say "the motherboard refuses to see it" is indeed a sign of hardware compatibility.

Reminded me a bit of my fight with my IBM PC-110 from 1995 which was bitching a lot on large CF cards. Although the internal CF reader can "see" the card and starts to boot from it i usually only get funny DOS messages like "No valid system". What is funny is that you can see it starts loading the bootloader as a CF formatted in my german windows 98 comes up with the same message - but in german 🤣. Although i tried a dozen of large cards it was simply not possible to use anything larger than 2 GB. At least for the PC-110 i am sure this is a BIOS related problem. With "most" CF cards of 2 GB or below it worked fine, but with some "high speed" cards. Some super fast cards did not work while generic no name cards worked fine. Ironically for the PC-110 slower meant better as the fastest ones simply didnt work.

Reply 6 of 9, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

On my SS7 I get CF corruption on the primary IDE port. So I tried the secondary and that one worked fine.

My CF cards also work on my 486 (OEM Acer). But I don't have anything much older to test.

The CF card has to show up in BIOS, even if there is no partition on it. You might have to go into the HDD section and do a scan or set the parameters manually.

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 8 of 9, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

IMO no, SMARTDRV isn't worth it for CF cards.

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 9 of 9, by carlostex

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'm actually using Industrial Grade SD Cards which use more reliable SLC instead of more common MLC. My 1GB card scores something like 0.60ms average access time on speedsys. Reads are very fast too, writes are not very impressive but i would say at first hand SMARTDRV is not needed too. It might be worth doing some tests.

In the mean time maybe other users can report their experiences about the subject.