VOGONS


First post, by OSkar000

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Trying to find a good reason for another way to overkill dos/windows 3.11/NT 3.51 build and got to think about if it would be possible to get it running in really high resolutions. I haven't played around with it in much more then 800x600 and some in 1024x768 and want to explore the possibilities of maxing out a good 20" or 24" lcd display.

From what I know I need at least 4mb vram to run 1920x1200 in 256 colors and a 8mb card should be enough for 24bit color. And thats if the drivers can support that resolution... 1600x1200 should be easier and requires less vram.

I have a few cards lying around here but from what I can find Matrox is best in terms of drivers for older versions of Windows. They have drivers even for the G400-series that should work with wfw 3.11. My only problem is that the G400-cards I have is AGP-cards and I would prefer PCI for this build...

S3 Virge with 4mb could possibly work. But I think that the cards I have has a really crappy ramdac and would not be to fun to use.
S3 Savage pro (?) 32mb pci, no drivers found
Nvidia riva TNT 16mb, pci, no drivers found.
Matrox Mystique 220, drivers ok, only 4mb card 🙁

Are there any other common and pretty good PCI-cards that could be used for this project that I'm currently not aware of?

Reply 1 of 21, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I've a 4MB Mystique in my NT 3.51 box, works well but anywhere near the resolutions your talking about even though it's attached to 20" monitor.
Personally I find even 1024x768 starts been a bit too big for the Win3x GUI, just big blank borders everywhere.

But yeh I think you on the right track, you could try standard Windows SVGA driver as well if you cant find one specific to the card.

Reply 2 of 21, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I believe the Savage 4 “should” have Windows 3.1 support , I can’t remember what the last cards were with 3.1 support but it seems like there were a few house solutions that aren’t documented anymore.

Matrox however is likely going to drive the highest resolution and was available with proprietary bios for all sorts of fixed frequency monitors

The highest resolution graphics card/ screen I encountered back in the day was made by Cornerstone, those cards used to be easily found but adapting the proprietary port to vga or ??? Might be tuff. Compatibility was better than I expected but you sometimes got letter boxing.

My best Win3.1 card was an s3 of some sort came bundled with Xing mpeg and the driver suite supported virtual screens.

Some folks have managed to get univesa up and running with modern cards and generic drivers

Reply 4 of 21, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
keenmaster486 wrote on 2021-07-08, 16:07:

You should be able to find drivers for the TNT.

https://web.archive.org/web/20001218021600/ht … TNT1.55W311.ZIP

From here https://web.archive.org/web/20000619115447/ht … www.nvidia.com/

And also as an attachment :

Filename
TNT1.55W311.ZIP
File size
659.81 KiB
Downloads
3 downloads
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Excerpt from oemsetup.inf :

; VERSION INFO
; ---------------------------------------------------------------
; This tells Setup that this is a 3.1 compatible OEM driver disk.
; Setup will not attempt to translate VDD and logo file name requests
; to their new equivalents on Windows 3.1 diskettes.

[data]
Version="3.10"
ProductName="NVidia TNT"
OemFileName="OEMNV.INF"

Reply 5 of 21, by OSkar000

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

My memory must have played me a trick when I searched for drivers the last time... Couldn't find anything useful for the TNT cards back then.

The TNT-card should work, its just the image quality that might be an issue. My other AGP-based TNT-cards is not that nice in 1600x1200 on a LCD.

At least I have some options to play around with for a fun project 😀

The next thing to solve is trying to make it work in 1920x1200. That was probably not in anyones mind when the drivers or Windows 3.11 was made.

Thanks for your help!

Reply 6 of 21, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Drivers aside, you might want to start looking for a Matrox G450 PCI if you want to drive that sort of resolution over an analog VGA line. Most TNT cards were (a bit) better than crappo S3 Virge when it came to RAMDAC and analog filters, but above 1280x960 you tend to start to see artefacting (fuzziness and colours shifting). 1920x1080 over VGA is possible, but you need GOOD card and cables.

Reply 7 of 21, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

..

A blurry DAC output could also have been the result of regulations.
I could be wrong, but I think that legally, at one point in time, 250MHz of was the upper limit for VGA in
terms of bandwidth.

That being said, I'm speaking under correction here.
The S3s were early SVGA cards, you know, from the early-mod 90s.
Maybe the regulations became more relaxed in the second part of the 90s, not sure.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 8 of 21, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jo22 wrote on 2021-07-11, 10:04:
.. […]
Show full quote

..

A blurry DAC output could also have been the result of regulations.
I could be wrong, but I think that legally, at one point in time, 250MHz of was the upper limit for VGA in
terms of bandwidth.

Back in the day I had an old 19” multisync monitor I bought from the tech college gov liquidation auction
using BNC cables it was rated for 1600x1200, using a VGA cable it only spec’d 1280x1024

Over BNC the image was notably sharper than using the VGA cable at all resolutions , at that time I only had one vga card that would do 1600 resolutions and only in 16 colors so beyond a yep it did it never used that resolution

I hauled the screen to shows and VGA was much more convenient even if I got a slight moire at higher resolutions (1024x768 was bigger so I usually didn’t use any higher anyway)

Reply 9 of 21, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
rmay635703 wrote on 2021-07-11, 17:55:
Back in the day I had an old 19” multisync monitor I bought from the tech college gov liquidation auction using BNC cables it w […]
Show full quote
Jo22 wrote on 2021-07-11, 10:04:
.. […]
Show full quote

..

A blurry DAC output could also have been the result of regulations.
I could be wrong, but I think that legally, at one point in time, 250MHz of was the upper limit for VGA in
terms of bandwidth.

Back in the day I had an old 19” multisync monitor I bought from the tech college gov liquidation auction
using BNC cables it was rated for 1600x1200, using a VGA cable it only spec’d 1280x1024

Over BNC the image was notably sharper than using the VGA cable at all resolutions , at that time I only had one vga card that would do 1600 resolutions and only in 16 colors so beyond a yep it did it never used that resolution

I hauled the screen to shows and VGA was much more convenient even if I got a slight moire at higher resolutions (1024x768 was bigger so I usually didn’t use any higher anyway)

That's cool! I can relate a bit to that, I think.
My father used to have a 20" VGA Monitor with BNC connectors at the back.
Red, Green, Blue and Horizontal Sync , Vertical Sync.

He used it for his 386DX-40 that had a Trident 8900D installed, I think.
He worked as a programmer and thus hadn't have very high demands. ~800x600 Resolution was good enough for him to work with his business applications.

The monitor perhaps wasn't made fir PC use originally,
since it wasn't multi-sync.
I assume it rather was a monitor meant for medical equipment.
Core spin tomograph, ultra sonic etc.
He got it second-hand, I believe, from a small advertisement that a hospital made in a local newspaper.

It had knobs for adjusting H/V-Sync, which normally were necessary when switching between 640x480 and 800x600.
He got away with it by using special monitor timings settings in Windows 95, if memory serves.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 10 of 21, by subnet_zero

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Don't buy a 2MB (MGA MYST/MOD2) upgrade for the 4 MB of your Mystique 220. It fits, but will not work as 6MB.
Re: Bought these (retro) hardware today

How about those ATI Rage cards with 8MB or more for PCI? They seem easily available and inexpensive.

Reply 11 of 21, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
rmay635703 wrote on 2021-07-11, 17:55:
[...] […]
Show full quote

[...]

Back in the day I had an old 19” multisync monitor I bought from the tech college gov liquidation auction
using BNC cables it was rated for 1600x1200, using a VGA cable it only spec’d 1280x1024

Over BNC the image was notably sharper than using the VGA cable at all resolutions , at that time I only had one vga card that would do 1600 resolutions and only in 16 colors so beyond a yep it did it never used that resolution

I hauled the screen to shows and VGA was much more convenient even if I got a slight moire at higher resolutions (1024x768 was bigger so I usually didn’t use any higher anyway)

My last 'regular' CRT was a monster, a Sony w900, 24" widescreen weighing 45kg. Note that this wasn't the legendary FW900, but its predecessor. So the screen was curved, not flat, and the astronomical horizontal scan rates of the FW900 were out of reach. But compared to just about anything else, this thing was amazing.

It had BNC and VGA as well, and could give good quality on both, so long as card and cables were GOOD. I usually ran it at 1600x900@85Hz. It would do 1920x1080, but only at 60Hz, which was bad for my eyes - and even with tough, thick, BNC cable and the best Matrox card I could find, it was fuzzy at 1920x108 where the output was razor (Trinitron) sharp at 1600x900. In any event it was an effective test of card output. I was surprised that despite its big dongle, my Voodoo3-3500TV came pretty close to the Matrox in terms of quality. So did my Leadtek GeForce4Ti and finally my Gigabyte 8800GT. Then I swapped it for a 60GB 2.5" drive to free up space in my then small living room.

Last edited by dionb on 2021-07-15, 12:39. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 15 of 21, by dr.zeissler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Jasin Natael wrote on 2021-07-14, 14:31:

I have used a ATI Rage LT Pro 8MB PCI card in my 486 running 3.11.

It supports True Color and high res modes. There are drivers available.

RageIIc supports Win3x, RageLTpro does not.

Retro-Gamer 😀PowerMac 6100-66/Houdini 486/66 - G4 Cube 450/Rage128pro OS9.0.1 - Macintosh LC/Apple IIe Card OS6.0.8 - Acorn A4000 Archimedes - Unisys CWD 486/66 + Aztech Washington

Reply 16 of 21, by Jasin Natael

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
dr.zeissler wrote on 2021-07-16, 11:05:
Jasin Natael wrote on 2021-07-14, 14:31:

I have used a ATI Rage LT Pro 8MB PCI card in my 486 running 3.11.

It supports True Color and high res modes. There are drivers available.

RageIIc supports Win3x, RageLTpro does not.

Hmmm, I know that I was using the card. It has been quite a while though. I must've been using a compatible driver that works with the LT chip?

Reply 17 of 21, by dr.zeissler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I could not find a LTpro compatible win3x -driver.

Retro-Gamer 😀PowerMac 6100-66/Houdini 486/66 - G4 Cube 450/Rage128pro OS9.0.1 - Macintosh LC/Apple IIe Card OS6.0.8 - Acorn A4000 Archimedes - Unisys CWD 486/66 + Aztech Washington

Reply 18 of 21, by Jasin Natael

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
dr.zeissler wrote on 2021-07-20, 04:49:

I could not find a LTpro compatible win3x -driver.

My bad, I went back and looked it was a Rage XL not a LT and apparently I was using it with the Mach64 drivers. This did work fine however for the requested resolution and color depth.

Sorry for the confusion.

Reply 19 of 21, by dr.zeissler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

...beside that the ITpro has some issues with quitting out of some OpenGL-games...BUT Amithlon works with the standard kernel.

Retro-Gamer 😀PowerMac 6100-66/Houdini 486/66 - G4 Cube 450/Rage128pro OS9.0.1 - Macintosh LC/Apple IIe Card OS6.0.8 - Acorn A4000 Archimedes - Unisys CWD 486/66 + Aztech Washington