Windows 3.11 DOS Boot CD
Pamula Harrison
The answer is running mouse.com from Microsoft VPC Additions or Integration Components Package.
Here are the general steps:
1.Boot up real DOS from a hard disk image. For example:
Z:>mount d c:\images
Z:>d:
D:>imgmount c "mywin311.img"
D:>boot -l c
2.Run mouse.com from Microsoft Virtual PC Additions or Integration Components Package ISO. It is the only mouse driver works so far I find.
I find Windows 3.11 ( with SmartDrv.exe enabled) runs much faster through BOOT. You may need to turn WriteCache off (/X) in SmartDrv, or the disk image may get corrupted. To make DOSBOX consume much less CPU time while running Windows 3.11, you can try another tool IDLE.COM from VPC.
Just checked again, and no, you don't need a dos driver for windows 3.x to use the mouse. And I've used a different mouse driver with a boot image before - just search the forum and you will find alternatives.
Your problem with Windows 3.x might be:
- When you choose the Tseng drivers when you install Windows, the mouse pointer might not be visible. To fix this go back to the DOSBox prompt, change dir to the Windows directory ("cd windows") , run setup again and then choose the VGA or SVGA drivers that come with Windows 3.1x. Start Windows again (your mouse pointer should be visible now) and then run setup from inside Windows to choose the Tseng drivers.
Hi. I too have run Windows 3.11 for years directly under DosBox successfully. What I am talking about is using BOOT instead of running Windows 3.11 directly. When BOOT used, there is no mouse cursor (S3) or the cursor does not move (paradise) depending on which video card chosen. Only DOS drivers from Microsoft work; and Daum build by ykhwong has no this mouse issue.
I have NO problem with an image that has Windows 3.x on it and is booted from in Dosbox. Windows 3.x works correctly without having to use the DOS mouse driver you mention.
This is with Dosbox 0.74 and SVN of Dosbox.
I've got several images and ALL work, even my bare minimum image. If you are having problems then you either are NOT using plain Dosbox OR you are loading something that causes problems.
So it seems an odd issue. I have tried the official one, the one with long file name patch and Daum build. Only Daum build with so many mouse patches (according to its configuration file) needed no DOS driver. Also I am using bare bone DOS with only himem/emm386 loaded. Here are my settings:
Host: Windows 8.1 X64
DOS: Windows 98 [Version 4.10.2222] and its himem/emm386.
Windows: Windows 3.11
Maybe it is this combination causes the problem.
I find the exact opposite, which makes sense because: A) emulating the CPU instructions of real DOS is slower than DOSBox's internal DOS emulation, and B) disk images are generally slower than local drive mounting.
Are you running Windows 3.11 in Standard Mode or 386 Enhanced Mode? If Standard Mode then you should set core=dynamic and cycles=max in DOSBox settings before starting Win3 for best speed. Note that running EMM386 when booting real DOS causes DOSBox to automatically switch to dynamic core and max cycles with default settings, which could account for the perceived speed increase when booting, but again it only matters for Standard Mode (386 Enhanced Mode also causes the automatic switch).
Actually Windows 3.11 + Windows 98 DOS works well on physic machine and DosBox (no BOOT). Maybe Windows 98 DOS needs some service the current DOSBOX mouse does not provide, so an additional DOS mouse driver from Microsoft is required to make up for it. I think porting some mouse code from Duam build back to the official source may fix this issue.
To make DosBox/BOOT run Windows 3.11 perfectly on Windows 98 DOS, to me there is just one small issue to be fixed: smarterdrv.exe corrupts hard disk image. I have to turn off Write Cache while using BOOT. The IDE code I guess may need to be revised.
Windows 3 uses DOS to access disk drives, in case you didn't know. Adding DOS code overhead and low-level disk access with an image file can ONLY drag down the emulation -- you do get better compatibility, but not more speed.
FYI, the IDLE.COM included in the DOS Additions for VPC 2004 simply inserts a HLT instruction in the INT 28 chain. There are utilities like DOSIDLE.COM that perform a similar function (and more) that work in DOSBox, and I think Daum even includes that program on the internal Z: drive.
I have observed the behavior you describe with Win3 in Daum SVN builds, and I mentioned it to Ykhwong at the time, but official source has never had the problem AFAIK. There would have been many reports of such a problem if it was commonplace. If you're going to stick with Daum, perhaps the DOSIDLE.COM program on the Z: drive can help, but I don't know for a fact that it will.
I have a 486 PC, 16mb ram with a DX4/75 (though clocked at 100) with Windows 3.11 and DOS6.22 installed on a 2gb CF card (running EZ-BIOS to overcome the size limitations). I'm thinking about getting Windows 95 installed and wondering if there is a "safe" and reliable way to dual boot my setup. Without destroying anything. If its worth doing at all.
Install MS-DOS, Windows 3.x and after install Windows 95 in the same partition. When prompted that there is an existing Windows version, press OK and select a different folder for Windows 95 (C:\win95 for example).
After the installation, Windows 95 will boot by default. If you want to change to MS-DOS, press F8 when the message Starting Windows appears and select "Previous operating system" or something like that and you'll boot onto MS-DOS.
Just add them back. Windows 95 will use them.
Technically, Windows 95 itself does not need MSCDEX anymore, also.
It has the CD extension built-in. So it's sufficient to load the CD-ROM driver alone.
For Windows 95, I mean. DOS and Windows still need both.
This practice was used in the early days of Windows 95,
when proprietary CD-ROM drives still existed,
but Windows 95 had no Windows drivers for it.
Another issue might be the permanent swap file of Windows 3.1x.
It's needed for Win32s, I think.
The swapfile is contiguous (one piece) and can't be moved. It's a special file.
Creating it requires (maybe) direct access to the FAT, too.
I have a custom autoexec/config files at the moment for my current build so I can boot up DOS with various drivers/settings installed or into Windows 3x etc. So I def want to keep that, and perhaps build on it with other options. I'll keep a backup of them anyway.
Just as a side note, as its been a long time since I installed win95 before too. Does it require DOS6.22 to be installed first before installing Win95, or not needed at all (does Win95 install its own version of DOS - DOS 7?!), i'm just wondering if I install Win95 without DOS6.22 first and Win95 would then install its own version of DOS 7, if its still compatible with old DOS games like Monkey Island etc etc.
b1e95dc632