Jo22 wrote on 2025-01-17, 04:22:

Windows 3.1 Beta build 034f

Windows 3.1 Real-Mode

Does it mean that that Beta still supports Real mode?

Grzyb wrote on 2025-01-17, 05:51:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-01-17, 04:22:

Windows 3.1 Beta build 034f

Windows 3.1 Real-Mode

Does it mean that that Beta still supports Real mode?

Hi, yes, it does - details are available at BetaWiki.
EMS support seems to be removed, though.

I've tried the Beta on an actual Commodore PC10 with V20, 8-Bit PVGA1A, 640KB RAM (+64 KB UMB), MS-DOS 6.22.

MineSweeper (game) and Flying Windows (screensaver) from final Windows 3.1x can be used in Real-Mode, too.

In theory, sound support is available via external sndblst.dll.
So especially written Windows 3.1 programs could take advantage of this.

Edit: That being said, the whole Windows 3.1 API probably isn't available in Real-Mode.
Just like the whole Windows 3.1 API isn't being available in Standard-Mode, either.
Advanced things like OLE2/COM may not be available in Real-Mode, I mean.

Edit: Picture added. Here's Creative Jukebox running on Windows 3.0 in Real-Mode, playing canyon.mid.
In essence, it requires sndblst.dll in same directory and the following entry in win.ini.
Otherwise, there's just no sound/music. No error message appears.

[SoundBlaster]
Port=220
Int=7
DMA=1

There are multiple versions of sndblst.dll, though. Two, at least.
The Creative Windows Installer on old Sound Blaster floppies did copy the appropriate file.
But it was also possible to copy the DLL manually (SB or SB Pro version).

Edit: There's no EMS because the screenshot was taken in DOSBox (I was lazy 😅).
In order to have EMS, real DOS with EMM386/MemMaker must be run from HDD image (then it usually has Large-Frame EMS).
Or DOSBox must be re-compiled with EMM386 specific behavior for providing EMS, maybe, not sure. But that means V86.

Edit: Typo. It's Int= not IRQ=. Sorry. And it's in win.ini (the modern drivers use system.ini).

Jo22 wrote on 2025-01-17, 06:13:

MineSweeper (game) and Flying Windows (screensaver) from final Windows 3.1x can be used in Real-Mode, too.

Of course, since they were originally produced for Microsoft Entertainment Pack which was native to Windows 3.0.

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-01-17, 15:17:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-01-17, 06:13:

MineSweeper (game) and Flying Windows (screensaver) from final Windows 3.1x can be used in Real-Mode, too.

Of course, since they were originally produced for Microsoft Entertainment Pack which was native to Windows 3.0.

🤷

I couldn't run Windows 3.1's binary of MineSweeper on Windows 3.0 in Real-Mode, though.
On Windows 3.1 Beta (RM) it ran just fine. There's just little memory left to run anything but small utilities. 🙁

LSS10999 wrote on 2025-01-06, 06:54:

PS: It seems Windows would automatically change title bar color to "sky blue" if using high colors (16/24 bits). Back then the trait was attributed to S3 but it seems to happen with just any video driver capable of higher color depths than 8-bit (256 colors).

There is a reason for this. The "base" color theme for Windows 3.1x is baked into the video driver. It just so happens the example Video 7 driver that comes with the Win 3.x DDKs has the "cool" blue (thats what the source calls it!) theme coded in. Guess what nearly every graphics card vendor (including this driver) used as a base for development? The one high-color driver that does use the classic blue theme from the VGA driver happens to be the Microsoft provided SVGA.EXE one.

Here are the base theme colors from the driver source:
VGA: https://github.com/neozeed/Windows_3.0_ddk_pr … ed/colortab.asm
8514/A and Video 7: https://github.com/neozeed/Windows_3.0_ddk_pr … ce/colortab.asm

Over the last month, this driver has seen several releases. These screenshots were taken using version 0.30 (from 03/06/25). It’s already performing well, though there are occasional UI glitches, and certain software (like Solitaire) can trigger a GDI crash. There’s now an even newer version available: 0.31. For testing, I used an AMD RX480 GPU on a socket 1700 motherboard. WinG games like SimCity 2000 (which, by the way, looks amazing in full HD) and DOOM are running smoothly.

Cool, thanks! ^^

Btw, QuickTime has multiple settings for output.
If memory serves, it can have hardware mode (ET-4000AX etc), DCI, GDI and WinDIB.
There's a setting for it in Control Panel, I think.

Xing MPEG Player uses DCI, if available. The Display Control Interface.
It's an video driver feature, rather than a Windows 3.x fearure.
It's like an video overlay feature, like it is also provided by DirectDraw on later Windows.
That's were the lines do blur, I think.

DirectDraw on later Windows does provide video overlays (like DCI),
but also device independent bitmaps (like WinDIB) and the ability mixing them with GDI elements (like WinG allows).

So WinG and DCI on Windows 3.1x provide comparable features that DirectDraw on Windows 95 does provide.
(DirectShow was video related and used DirectDraw as an output).

Back in the 90s, the ELSA video drivers for Windows 3.1 did add a DCI= setting in win.ini, I think.
So I believe that cards like S3 Trio32/64 or S3 ViRGE had DCI support.
(DCI maybe also supported things like scaling or colour space conversion, not sure.)

A Windows 95 version was planned (DCI32) but scrapped, I think.
I think Windows 95 does allow use of DCI to Win16/Win32 applications, though, if DCI compatible Windows 3.1 drivers are being used.
GDI in Windows 95 is still 16-Bit at heart.

Speaking under correction, it just came to mind! 😅

Attachment fixed.

Edit: More information on DCI: https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php/Mi … _Archive/120260

Most PCI video cards that came with Windows 3.1x drivers supported DCI. Problem is that support came so late that very few video card drivers and applications have support. By the time it mattered, Windows 95 was already out.

NJRoadfan wrote on 2025-03-15, 21:45:

Most PCI video cards that came with Windows 3.1x drivers supported DCI. Problem is that support came so late that very few video card drivers and applications have support. By the time it mattered, Windows 95 was already out.

That's a really interesting topic! 🙂
I agree that Windows 95 made ordinary users more aware of higher resolutions/colour depths.
Thanks to Windows 95 auto-detection feature for plug&play and non-plug&play hardware.
Windows 98SE improved on it, with many graphics drivers nolonger requiring a re-boot on resolution or colour depth change.

By contrast, many Windows 3.1 users sadly didn't even have had the companion disks of their graphics cards, so they were stuck to Standard VGA.
Either because the seller forgot them, or it was bulk hardware (bare card in a bag) or because everyone thought Windows 3.1 equals 640x480 16c
and did throw them away with the box, ads and registrations cards.

Reading comments on forums outside Vogons leaves the impression that barely any power users or office users had existed on Windows in the 80s or early 90s.
Someone has to read old magazines or watch 90s footage on tape to notice that 800x600 and 1024x768 were normal resolutios on office PCs.

On the internet, there are those oldtimers age 60 up who constantly brag about their (used) 20 MB MFM drive they had bought for lots of cash* in the 80s/early 90s (!), while simultanously mixing up certain facts.

Such as stating that Windows 3.0 required an 386 and 2 MB of RAM.
Others claim that Windows 3 uses CGA mode and whatnot.
Or that XTs can't use VGA cards and use plain text-mode cards only. Something like that.

They're projecting in short, I think. They had a 386, but not enough money to afford enough RAM.
So they make up criterias that do match what they had owned.
It's not even meant bad or on purpose. It's their subconsciousness that tries to justify/self-defend.

(I mean, okay, a 386 isn't wrong - for full operation in 386 Enhanced Mode it's needed
and some applications had used Watcom WIN386 extender such as FoxPro; same time, though, 2MB was borderline RAM configuration.
Windows 3 automatically falls back to more efficient Standard Mode at around ~2MB, unless being forced with WIN /3).

Most wannabe-experts (aka old farts) that walk down their memory lane not seldomly
do show surprisement that Windows 3.1 could run in 800x600 16c at all,
despite Windows 3.1 shipping with a driver for it (its in Windows Setup).
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 even added 256c colour SVGA drivers that used to be optional available at Microsoft BBS/FTP.

This is all very interesting, because 800x600 16c hadn't been anything outstanding, at all.
Except that normal VGA monitors had displayed it in 56Hz using interlacing.
Even third-party EGA cards featured that resolution in the mid-80s, along with something like a 720x5xy resolution.
Here, EGA/VGA compatibles were basically same in terms of features.

By the time Windows 3.0 came out in 1990, some CAD/CAM users ran their software in 1024x768 in 16c and up (full 1987 era IBM 8514/A resolution was 1024x768 @256c).

800x600 16c was normal for spreadsheet lovers, were colour was secondary.
Most Windows 2.x and GEM drivers from 1987 onwards supported that resolution, with 1024x768 being next best higher one.

1024x768 in monochrome was available with 256KB of VGA memory, even.
For Microsoft Excel on Windows 2.x that was okay. Better than CGA in monochrome.

The normal upper limit for PC users was 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 resolution by 1990,
with certain specialized non-PC graphics stations going up to 2048x1536 or 2560x1920 by mid-90s.

Speaking under correction.

(* which was cheap for the megabyte, actually. Hard disks used to be really expensive in late 70s and the 60s. As much as a car or a swimming pool.
By the mid-80s, they became affordable to private home users.
For a former enterprise and mainframe product that's a huge price drop!
Unfortunately, PC owners don't/didn't understand the difference between hobby/leisure use and professional use.
Otherwise they wouldn't complain about money they had "lost" 40 years ago. Sigh.)

Most everybody had 256 color drivers installed on their Windows 3.1 machines if the cards supported it. Most did not upgrade the drivers that came with the computer though. I remember when I got SimTower, I had to switch from my Cirrus Logic card's circa 1993 drivers to the Microsoft SVGA.EXE driver since the version installed didn't support WinG at all. Maxis recommended the generic VBE driver, so I just went with that. Wasn't too long after that I was running Windows 95.

I don't need to use this driver as I'm using a Voodoo 3 in my DOS/WfW311 machine, but to see people showing interest in getting Windows 3.x running again 30+ years later is fantastic!

Sleaka_J wrote on 2025-03-16, 13:24:

I don't need to use this driver as I'm using a Voodoo 3 in my DOS/WfW311 machine, but to see people showing interest in getting Windows 3.x running again 30+ years later is fantastic!

Was a Windows 3.x driver ever released for the Voodoo 3? That seems highly unlikely. If you're currently relying on the VBE-patched 256-color SVGA driver to use your Voodoo 3 with WfW311, you should really try this driver instead.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-03-15, 22:52:

Most wannabe-experts (aka old farts) that walk down their memory lane not seldomly do show surprisement that Windows 3.1 could r […]
Show full quote

Most wannabe-experts (aka old farts) that walk down their memory lane not seldomly
do show surprisement that Windows 3.1 could run in 800x600 16c at all,
despite Windows 3.1 shipping with a driver for it (its in Windows Setup).
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 even added 256c colour SVGA drivers that used to be optional available at Microsoft BBS/FTP.

This is all very interesting, because 800x600 16c hadn't been anything outstanding, at all.
Except that normal VGA monitors had displayed it in 56Hz using interlacing.
Even third-party EGA cards featured that resolution in the mid-80s, along with something like a 720x5xy resolution.
Here, EGA/VGA compatibles were basically same in terms of features.

By the time Windows 3.0 came out in 1990, some CAD/CAM users ran their software in 1024x768 in 16c and up (full 1987 era IBM 8514/A resolution was 1024x768 @256c).

800x600 16c was normal for spreadsheet lovers, were colour was secondary.
Most Windows 2.x and GEM drivers from 1987 onwards supported that resolution, with 1024x768 being next best higher one.

Odd. I remember running Win3.1 in 800x600 256 color on a nice sharp SVGA display of the day. I don't remember Win3.0 very much, for reasons I don't need to get into here. But anyway, Win3.1 was a nice upgrade, and coupled with SVGA by the time Win3.1 came around, was very nice indeed. I don't think alot of people cared for VGA trying to run windows "high-res" by the time Windows really was popular, and was pretty much obsolete when Win3.1 landed. SVGA was likely what people were buying. And likely the same in the waning days of Win3.0.

digger wrote on 2025-03-16, 22:26:

Was a Windows 3.x driver ever released for the Voodoo 3? That seems highly unlikely. If you're currently relying on the VBE-patched 256-color SVGA driver to use your Voodoo 3 with WfW311, you should really try this driver instead.

I didn't say I was using a Voodoo 3 driver, but a driver for the 3DFX Velocity 100 (which is essentially an 8Mb/1TMU version of the Voodoo 3) does exist for Windows 3.x and it works perfectly with the Voodoo 3.

but it'S slowwwwwwwwww...compared to mga mil/mys/g200/400

While we're at it, I might as well inquire how well Rendition Verite works in Win16. It had...unique...properties in certain kinds of VGA modes, and being younger than Windows 95 its driver set was really only made with those calls in mind. How well its NT4 driver works in NT3 is another one of those things that only this kind of community would find interest in (my retro PCs are currently not assembled for experimentation - move coming up).

I hope it will support GUI acceleration.

JSO wrote on Yesterday, 14:03:

I hope it will support GUI acceleration.

There is a pending feature request for VBE/AF support. The developer responded with interest and expressed openness towards implementing it, but as you can read in the GitHub thread, it's currently unclear which GPUs would actually benefit from it and what actual performance gains it would bring, if any.

digger wrote on Yesterday, 15:24:

JSO wrote on Yesterday, 14:03:

I hope it will support GUI acceleration.

There is a pending feature request for VBE/AF support. The developer responded with interest and expressed openness towards implementing it, but as you can read in the GitHub thread, it's currently unclear which GPUs would actually benefit from it and what actual performance gains it would bring, if any.

The interest here for me is to benefit from a more compatible driver with acceleration on actual old computers (where you may have not access to proper GUI acceleration).

Sometimes it seems we are all focused to gaming but I also enjoy tinkering with outdated applications and for that purpose a responsive GUI is key.

The acceleration is a non-trivial task, every different video chipset and chipset family has its own idea how things should work too so universality is not going to happen. The VBE/AF was basically not supported, and the rest is device/card specific drivers territory.