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.

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

You should be able to find drivers for the TNT.

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 :

Excerpt from oemsetup.inf :

1; VERSION INFO
2; ---------------------------------------------------------------
3; This tells Setup that this is a 3.1 compatible OEM driver disk.
4; Setup will not attempt to translate VDD and logo file name requests
5; to their new equivalents on Windows 3.1 diskettes.
6
7[data]
8    Version="3.10"
9    ProductName="NVidia TNT"
10    OemFileName="OEMNV.INF"

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!

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.

..

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

I downloaded a Win3.11 driver for Savage 4 - with 1600x1200 support, but can't remember where I found it - ver 6.10.26

Thanks for all the replys here 😀

I still havent been able to test anything but I have plenty of things to try now 😀

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.

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?

I could not find a LTpro compatible win3x -driver.

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.

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