Dear feipoa, I'm sorry that I could not immediately help you. I have been away for a week.
To enable mouse support, you need to set the wheel jumper.

You did it?
If this jumper is removed, the adapter works like a 3-button Logitech mouse.
A connected mouse does not matter. Naturally, a mouse should be with a wheel for use it.

Oh, sorry - I didn't realise there was a jumper to use the wheel. I left the card on the jumper settings that it was sent with (everything off, I think). Yes, I have a wheel on the mouse, but not all my mice have a wheel. What will happen if I use a 3-button mouse, but have the wheel mouse jumper enabled?

What do you make of the Windows95 confusion with COM1? If the card is set to COM 3, do you still need to disable COM 1 in WIndows 95 for the mouse to work?

Is there any benefit in using the 50% speed or the 1/2 datarate, e.g. less CPU usage?

feipoa wrote:

What will happen if I use a 3-button mouse, but have the wheel mouse jumper enabled?

The adapter will work like a Logitech 3-btn mouse. During startup, the adapter checks for the presence of a wheel on the mouse.

feipoa wrote:

What do you make of the Windows95 confusion with COM1? If the card is set to COM 3, do you still need to disable COM 1 in WIndows 95 for the mouse to work?

You must disable COM1 only in the BIOS or on the Multi i/o card. The adapter becomes the COM1 port. If you see COM1 on Windows and the adapter is installed, this COM1 is the adapter.

feipoa wrote:

Is there any benefit in using the 50% speed or the 1/2 datarate, e.g. less CPU usage?

Try it. Both setting are realtime.

Rio444 wrote:

You must disable COM1 only in the BIOS or on the Multi i/o card. The adapter becomes the COM1 port. If you see COM1 on Windows and the adapter is installed, this COM1 is the adapter.

Did you have a chance to view my screenshots in the other page of this thread? If I disable COM 1 in BIOS, Windows 95c still wants to re-introduce COM 1 as a port. And the mouse mistakenly gets assigned to IRQ 9 with address 023C, which is not IRQ 4, 3F8 as it should be. Would you be willing to replicate and look into this issue? The only way I found to fix it was to disable COM 1 in Windows. Or possibly a COM 3 card would fix the issue? Windows seems to have the ability to override the BIOS's COM1 disable setting. Windows NT 3.51, on the other hand, naturally has no COM 1 port (only has COM 2 listed) and the mouse is setup as COM 1.

If a Logitech 3-btn mouse will work just fine as a 3 button mouse with the scroll wheel jumper enabled, why would you ever need to disable it? Shouldn't it be left on by default?

feipoa wrote:

If a Logitech 3-btn mouse will work just fine as a 3 button mouse with the scroll wheel jumper enabled, why would you ever need to disable it? Shouldn't it be left on by default?

This is necessary if your mouse has a wheel and you want to use the driver for a mouse without a wheel. Otherwise, the 3rd mouse button will not work. The reason is the different way of encoding the 3rd button in a 3-button mouse and in a mouse with a wheel. Drivers for a 3-button mouse are much more common, especially for older OS and DOS.

feipoa wrote:

Rio444 wrote:

You must disable COM1 only in the BIOS or on the Multi i/o card. The adapter becomes the COM1 port. If you see COM1 on Windows and the adapter is installed, this COM1 is the adapter.

Did you have a chance to view my screenshots in the other page of this thread? If I disable COM 1 in BIOS, Windows 95c still wants to re-introduce COM 1 as a port. And the mouse mistakenly gets assigned to IRQ 9 with address 023C, which is not IRQ 4, 3F8 as it should be.

Windows 95 should introduce port COM1. But, if this port is disabled in the BIOS, and the adapter is installed, then COM1 will be the adapter.
Please enable COM1 in Windows and manually configure the port settings 3F8, IRQ4.
That is how it should be:

What you are suggesting is not possible on my system. I believe that enabling COM1 in Windows 95c is enabling the RS232 hardware on the motherboard and it is conflicting with the IRQ and address of the emulator card. COM1 in Windows 95c must be disabled on my system for the mouse to work. I'm not sure if my system is just particular, or your system is overly relaxed in this regard.

In the photos below, I am showing that COM1 is on the same address as the emulator card. Then I try to re-enable COM1, and the system spits out error messages, then hangs.

Which version of Windows 95 did you test and on which motherboard?

On the same system, Windows NT 3.51 does not contain COM1 as part of its ports list. It removed COM1 once I installed the emulator card, which is the opposite of what Win95c does.

For the others who received a COM 1/2/3/4 card, I'd be interested to learn if you have the same issue when the card is set to COM1.

feipoa wrote:

Try set "Use automatic setting". If this does not help, reinstall Windows.

Which motherboard are you using? Are COM ports built-in or on the separate multi i/o card? Although, if the adapter works in safe mode, it does not matter.
None of the others who received the adapter had any problems with it.
The COM1 port is the most natural for the mouse and the least problematic for software. This is written in the manuals and verified by me empirically.

Details on how to use a mouse with a wheel in Windows 95.
1. Install the mouse wheel jumper on the adapter.

2. Download the driver https://yadi.sk/d/6pmfdu0GRNZzpQ
3. Unzip the driver.
4. Enter the folder with the unpacked driver and run setup.exe.

5. After installation and reboot, the "MICROSOFT SERIAL MOUSE WITH WHEEL" should appear in the list of devices. That must be exactly the case, in capital letters.

The automatic setting keeps COM1 as IRQ 4, 03F8.

The RS232 ports are built into the motherboard. The motherboard is a NexGen Nx586 with PF110 CPU.

The 4 others testers of the emulator card were able to leave COM1 enabled in Windows 95c? And they still have COM1 setup as IRQ 4, 3F8 in the Windows95 ports section? What are their port settings? Am I supposed to adjust them? It is hard to beleive that I'm the only one who has this problem. Does anyone else have the RS232 ports as part of the BIOS, rather than on an ISA card?

I'm not going to re-install Windows; it is way too much work for the uncertainty. I have all my software setup. I doubt the issue is my installation. The serial port works fine if I plug a mouse into it.

feipoa wrote:

I'm not going to re-install Windows; it is way too much work for the uncertainty. I have all my software setup. I doubt the issue is my installation. The serial port works fine if I plug a mouse into it.

You do not have to install Windows on the same hard drive. Take another unoccupied hard drive and install on it. It will take 30-60 minutes. If the mouse works fine, it is obvious that the problem is software.
What is Windows 95c? I usually use Windows 95 OSR2.

Check the settings of COM2, which works fine. Perhaps they are wrong. And the conflict is precisely because of it.

Windows 95c is OSR 2.5.

Previously, I tried another socket 4 system with built-in PS/2 and I couldn't get the COM1 mouse working Windows shows COM1. I spent hours trying to figure that out. Are all my Windows installations messed up? Seems unlikely to me the issue is my Windows installation. I can install the card in any number of computers and I suspect the issue will be the same. Can I use the card in a system with a PS/2 mouse? If so, then I have plenty of system to choose from - no need to reinstall windows. So if we determine Windows is not the fault, then what?

feipoa wrote:

I have been dealing with these adapters for more than 3 months and have tested many systems. As a result, I managed to achieve its good work in all systems.
It is highly unlikely that the adapter turned out to be inoperative on your system. Especially on a few.
It seems to me that you do not understand the principle of operation of the adapter.
When you insert it into the motherboard, it is equivalent to a COM port with a serial mouse connected to it.
You can use diagnostic utilities for DOS (for example, SysCheck, the screenshots of which I gave above) to make sure that the system sees the adapter and there are no conflicts. Similarly, you need to check the ports in Windows. It’s hard for me to explain things that seem obvious to me. It seems easier to configure your system yourself than to explain to you how to do it.

You can see the adapter even during the boot phase of the computer.
Here, the native СOM1 port is disabled. You see only the COM2 (2F8).

The adapter is installed here and it is seen as 3F8.

The presence of the PS/2 port does not affect the operation of the adapter. Similarly, it cannot affect the operation of a real serial mouse in the COM port.
If a mouse is connected to the PS/2 port at the same time, this may cause some problems.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong. I showed SysCheck screenshots on the Russian-language forum.
COM1 is the adapter. COM2 is the native COM port.

Rio444 wrote:

It seems to me that you do not understand the principle of operation of the adapter.
When you insert it into the motherboard, it is equivalent to a COM port with a serial mouse connected to it.

Of course I am aware of this. I'm not so old that I forgot such basics.

Rio444 wrote:

It is highly unlikely that the adapter turned out to be inoperative on your system. Especially on a few.

I never said the mouse was inoperative. The adapter works just fine in DOS (its natureally setup as COM1) and Windows 95c, but I must disable COM1 for it to work.

Rio444 wrote:

You can see the adapter even during the boot phase of the computer. Here, the native СOM1 port is disabled. You see only the COM […]
Show full quote

You can see the adapter even during the boot phase of the computer.
Here, the native СOM1 port is disabled. You see only the COM2 (2F8).

The adapter is installed here and it is seen as 3F8.

I am aware of this already. Looks the same on my system.

I am also aware that IRQ 4, COM1, and its address of the Emulator card are defining COM1. The issue is that Windows 95 does not like this. There is a non-obvious conflict which my require a much deaper understanding of Windows 95 and how its programmed to resolve the issue on this system. But is it worth the trouble? Is it even an issue? The emulator card works fine. What is the benefit to having COM1 listed under Ports section anyway? Do we need to change the baud rate? Change hardware control? Why does it matter if it is disabled? NT 3.51 doesn't have COM1 listed in its port section. Is there something wrong with it too? If I pull out the emulator card from NT 3.51, COM1 returns to the Ports section. Emulator card installed, COM1 disappears from the ports section.

feipoa wrote:

I am also aware that IRQ 4, COM1, and its address of the Emulator card are defining COM1. The issue is that Windows 95 does not like this. There is a non-obvious conflict which my require a much deaper understanding of Windows 95 and how its programmed to resolve the issue on this system. But is it worth the trouble? Is it even an issue? The emulator card works fine. What is the benefit to having COM1 listed under Ports section anyway? Do we need to change the baud rate? Change hardware control? Why does it matter if it is disabled? NT 3.51 doesn't have COM1 listed in its port section. Is there something wrong with it too? If I pull out the emulator card from NT 3.51, COM1 returns to the Ports section. Emulator card installed, COM1 disappears from the ports section.

Usually everything is installed and works automatically (with the exception of the driver of a mouse with a wheel). There is a malfunction on your computer. It may be caused by hardware or software features. Or you accidentally messed up the software settings. Let's try to find out what is wrong.
During normal operation of the adapter, Windows sees it and shows it as COM1 (if the "COM2" jumper is removed on the adapter itself). Moreover, this happens in all Windows: 3.10/11, 95, 98, NT 3.51 and 4.0.
You can also start the "Add New Hardware" from the Windows "Control Panel". This can help find ports and fix conflicts.
Before starting, it is better to remove all COM ports from the list of equipment.

Try SysCheck in Windows.
It work!

Dounload here https://yadi.sk/d/0IL_kX29S2Wpaw

P.S.
If you give me a download link, I can check Windows 95с.

Syscheck will not run properly on my NexGen PF110. I tried it with idon.com and idoff.com

When you run Windows NT 3.51, and have the emulator card setup for COM1, do you still see COM1 listed in the ports section of the Control Panel? NT is removing the COM# which has the mouse on it. Is this not the correct behavior? Could you check this?

On your system, if you leave COM1 enabled in the BIOS, are you still able to use the emulator card on COM1 in Windows 95? I suspect my system is reserving COM1's IRQ4 and 3F8 for the motherboard's onboard RS232 and refuses to give it up, even though there isn't any hardware plugged into the port.

I have already tried deleting all the COM ports in SafeMode and "search for new hardware" with the wizard, but the problem persists.

Attached is the POST screen. COM1 is disabled in the BIOS, and 3F8 shows up from the emulator card as expected. But if your set in BIOS to have COM1 enabled and run the emulator card on COM1, what happens in Windows? I suspect you will experience the problems I am having.

I noticed that you have two baud rates set for COM1/COM2. One at 1200 baud, the other at 2400 baud. Which of these should I be using? I think Windows defaults to 9600.

feipoa wrote:

Syscheck will not run properly on my NexGen PF110. I tried it with idon.com and idoff.com

It is very strange. Maybe the reason is really in the processor?

feipoa wrote:

When you run Windows NT 3.51, and have the emulator card setup for COM1, do you still see COM1 listed in the ports section of the Control Panel? NT is removing the COM# which has the mouse on it. Is this not the correct behavior? Could you check this?

Yes, of course, the COM port should be in the list of devices.
But most likely it disappears because the adapter is a new COM port. Therefore, it must be set again manually.
The reason is that the usual COM port works like a 16550 chip. And the adapter is like an older 8250.
Here I add a new COM1 port.

Here the port has already been added and its properties.

The speed of 9600 is not real, other settings are the same. If you change them, nothing will change in the work. The same thing happens in Win95 even when working with a regular COM-mouse. I do not know why this is happening.

feipoa wrote:

On your system, if you leave COM1 enabled in the BIOS, are you still able to use the emulator card on COM1 in Windows 95? I suspect my system is reserving COM1's IRQ4 and 3F8 for the motherboard's onboard RS232 and refuses to give it up, even though there isn't any hardware plugged into the port.

I have already tried deleting all the COM ports in SafeMode and "search for new hardware" with the wizard, but the problem persists.

Attached is the POST screen. COM1 is disabled in the BIOS, and 3F8 shows up from the emulator card as expected. But if your set in BIOS to have COM1 enabled and run the emulator card on COM1, what happens in Windows? I suspect you will experience the problems I am having.

I just tested, and a really real COM port can coexist simultaneously with the adapter. Windows 95 booted up, but the mouse naturally didn't work.
Sorry, I forgot to return the adapter in the slot. Windows does not boot up. It stops during the boot process. Only DOS boot up.
Do you think Windows somehow enables COM1, despite the fact that it is disabled in BIOS?
Could you start Windows with disabled onboard COM1 and without the adapter, delete COM ports, reboot and search for COM ports with the "Add Hardware" in the "Control panel"?

On most of my hardware Windows enables COM and LPT ports I have disabled in BIOS previously.

Tiido wrote:

On most of my hardware Windows enables COM and LPT ports I have disabled in BIOS previously.

Do you also use Windows 95с (OSR2.5)?

It happens with Win95C, 98SE and ME on those computers. I don't know about original 95 and the other versions and vanilla 98.