H3nrik V! wrote on 2025-04-18, 19:42:

Now what ... […]
Show full quote

Now what ...

I thought I could succesfully install DOS 6.22 on that CF card, BUT... I don't think I ever did more than install it, didn't boot or anything ...

Now, after installing DOS 6.22 it just shows "Error!" after startup?

I've tried both settings for IDE drive - same story.

On a 128 MiB CF card, it starts fine, but that's kinda too small to install NT, right?

Nt is ~120mb installed iirc
I got it as low as 40 for some dedicated terminal clients back in the day - but I ended up using w95a because I got it down to 16mb.

Since I have been able to boot into the NT installer (and DOS622) on the 512meg CF, I don't believe INT13 is the issue. Maybe the "lock" command I used with the first SP1 ISO has messed something up? (Had to lock drive to be able to run the installer). The SP6 ISO doesn't have it.

Pretty sure it's a dos command.
Try it.

myne wrote on 2025-04-19, 07:36:

Pretty sure it's a dos command.
Try it.

Oh my, thouhgt I ran it from the i386 folder 🤣 Must try again - I guess "unlock" is its counterpart?

So, the answer to the "Error!" was "fdisk /mbr"

Now going for an i386 folder with SP6 ...

Heureka! A breakthrough!

After messing around with the previous mentioned setup, using NT4.0 Workstation SP1, SP6 a and even 3.51 Workstation - all to same error, I figured;

1. Why not try Server
2. Why not for the fun of it, remove 2 of the 16 MiB sticks

And now, I'm in the graphical part of setup.

So, was it the version or the memory. Honestly, I'm biased to the latter, all though Memtest didn't detect any errors ...

Am I totally wrong if I think that PShipkov had some issues with one motherboard/chipset and excactly 64MiBs? Or was that a performance issue rather than a stability issue - I'm just trying to justify not swapping memory earlier on 🤣

either some specific incompatibility or flaky ram.
the individual sticks may be ok on their own, but in combo they can be problematic, especially with more tight timings, but sometimes even specific relaxed timings can be a problem.

memtest or other synthetic tests are not indicative and often misleading regarding system stability.

good to see you are past this obstacle.

about the 64mb issue - it appears on some 486 mobos with umc chipsets. affects performance, does not degrade stability.

Memtest is good for detecting memory that's actually broken, it does not always catch edge cases or borderline timing issues

I guess I know the reason the memory failed ... The 2x16 MiB, I removed were EDO - the two left back were not. That's kind of a recipe for disaster, all though according to datasheet the SiS 496/497 is EDO compatible.

maxtherabbit wrote on 2025-04-20, 21:39:

Memtest is good for detecting memory that's actually broken, it does not always catch edge cases or borderline timing issues

True that, and I have been advised in other situations to spend at least 24 hours before calling anything stable. I only went for about 12 here ...

So you mixed fp and edo?

Welcome to the NT4 on a 486 club. I rather like it in my 486 platform (hosting a POD83 right now).

Old NT systems can be pretty interesting. Lots of trial and error. Shoot, I installed NT 3.1 twice on my system today just to get it right. That's part of the fun.

myne wrote on 2025-04-21, 00:00:

So you mixed fp and edo?

Yes, didn't think that far when picking DIMMs from the drawer ... 🤣

fosterwj03 wrote on 2025-04-21, 02:14:

Welcome to the NT4 on a 486 club. I rather like it in my 486 platform (hosting a POD83 right now).

Old NT systems can be pretty interesting. Lots of trial and error. Shoot, I installed NT 3.1 twice on my system today just to get it right. That's part of the fun.

Thanks, don't know if it will be a long journey, though. Started because I wanted to help Red-Ray extracting some data with SIV on a particular stepping 486DX50. (Downclocked to 33 though to rule out issues with clock speeds).
Found at that my PS/2 mouse is not dual protocol, so either it's tapping through NT, or I will have to populate the PS/2 footprint on the motherboard.

Eh? Data recovery?
Or some old equipment that only works with NT4?

I know that i repeat myself and dont really contribute to the topic here, but nt4 is such a workhorse.
Compact on disk and in memory, stable, fast, smp, minimalistic - only the essentials.
System monitor looks gorgeous displaying only 12mb of ram occupied out of 4gb available.
Same for disk manager 60mb taken out of 4gb partition, ok - make it 120mb with vc6 added.

H3nrik V! wrote on 2025-04-20, 21:39:

I guess I know the reason the memory failed ... The 2x16 MiB, I removed were EDO - the two left back were not. That's kind of a recipe for disaster, all though according to datasheet the SiS 496/497 is EDO compatible.

Only the later revisions of the SiS 496 are EDO compatible, many of the ones in the wild are not. In either case, mixing the types is a bad idea as you stated.

maxtherabbit wrote on 2025-04-22, 13:04:

H3nrik V! wrote on 2025-04-20, 21:39:

I guess I know the reason the memory failed ... The 2x16 MiB, I removed were EDO - the two left back were not. That's kind of a recipe for disaster, all though according to datasheet the SiS 496/497 is EDO compatible.

Only the later revisions of the SiS 496 are EDO compatible, many of the ones in the wild are not. In either case, mixing the types is a bad idea as you stated.

Apparently, yes. Just for kicks and giggles, I tried to boot with EDO only - no POST, so no my revision is probably not EDO compatible.

myne wrote on 2025-04-21, 08:31:

Eh? Data recovery?
Or some old equipment that only works with NT4?

No, something about how CPUs without cpuid instruction identifies itself. I'm not quite sure, just happy to be able to contribute to anything 🤣

pshipkov wrote on 2025-04-22, 07:22:

I know that i repeat myself and dont really contribute to the topic here, but nt4 is such a workhorse. Compact on disk and in me […]
Show full quote

I know that i repeat myself and dont really contribute to the topic here, but nt4 is such a workhorse.
Compact on disk and in memory, stable, fast, smp, minimalistic - only the essentials.
System monitor looks gorgeous displaying only 12mb of ram occupied out of 4gb available.
Same for disk manager 60mb taken out of 4gb partition, ok - make it 120mb with vc6 added.

Seems very nice, haven't tried it since once back in the day, when I tried it on a dual Pentium 133 system.
I have been very fond of Windows 2000 though, also for some gaming.
And total bonus to find out the "Prairie Wind" was introduced already in NT4, it's really my go-to in Windows 2000 😀