1024x768 under Windows 3.11
Alde
I have a PowerVR Kyro II chipset (Hercules Prophet 4500).
I want to use Windows 3.11 in 1024x768 mode, but the SVGA driver of
Windows doesn't work. The Video7 driver works but it has a 27 Hz
horizontal refresh mode and my monitor only support from 30 Hz in
horizontal.
I have tried with Scitech Display Doctor, univesa driver, but it
doesn't work cuz doesn't support new chipsets as Kyro II.
My card has Vesa 3.0, but Windows 3.11 doesn't use this system, so I
only can work in 640x480 mode.
Any idea?.
Regards.
shinguz
This is a late-model adapter, right?
The problem with 16-bit Windows is that the vendors do not
support it anymore. It means that no new drivers are made for new
hardware. I know it is a pain in the a**, but that's the way Bill
& Co. wants it.
Your best bet would be to get yourself an adapter from (maybe)
'95-'96, something that physically fits your computer *and* has
the Windows 3.1x drivers available. Then figure out the chipset
for the card and get the drivers from the appropriate
manufacturer. Go for a big name if you have a choice, the small
manufacturers may have gone out of business by now!
I have several S3, Tseng and Cirrus cards on my systems. Old
EISA, ISA and PCI boards, most do 640x800 and 768x1024 with 32k
or 64k colors at a low refresh. Nothing to brag about, but they
definitely do their job. I get either Windows or X on the screen,
games... well, I am still stuck with DoomII.
--
Hit reply to get lost in cyberspace, the real address is shinguz
<at> phreaker <dot> net
Posted with an IBM 9545-cex
EM
>
> > I have a PowerVR Kyro II chipset (Hercules Prophet 4500).
>
> This is a late-model adapter, right?
>
> The problem with 16-bit Windows is that the vendors do not
> support it anymore. It means that no new drivers are made for new
> hardware. I know it is a pain in the a**, but that's the way Bill
> & Co. wants it.
>
> Your best bet would be to get yourself an adapter from (maybe)
> '95-'96, something that physically fits your computer *and* has
> the Windows 3.1x drivers available. Then figure out the chipset
> for the card and get the drivers from the appropriate
> manufacturer. Go for a big name if you have a choice, the small
> manufacturers may have gone out of business by now!
>
> I have several S3, Tseng and Cirrus cards on my systems. Old
> EISA, ISA and PCI boards, most do 640x800 and 768x1024 with 32k
> or 64k colors at a low refresh. Nothing to brag about, but they
> definitely do their job.
I've used PCI ATI cards with good success. ATI has Win3.x drivers for
pretty much any PCI card with Mach64 or Rage chipsets, and that includes
the more recent 3D Rage cards made in '97-'99. This means that with
enough video RAM (4MB), you could run Windows 3.x in 1024x768 @ 24 bits.
If you're lucky, you can find a Rage-2 based card with 4MB on eBay for
under $10.
ATI drivers are available here:
http://www.gaby.de/win3x/drivers.htm
> I get either Windows or X on the screen,
> games... well, I am still stuck with DoomII.
If you have a fast CPU (i.e. anything over a P150) and a decent amount
of RAM (32MB +), you can run Quake in DOS, no problem.
Beats the HELL out of Doom, let me tell you!
shinguz
amount
> of RAM (32MB +), you can run Quake in DOS, no problem.
>
Not so sure about that :(
All of the faster computers that I have are old servers and run
duals, raid and such. That means an smp operating system which
pretty much rules out Quake on dos. Sure I could do Quake on
LInux, but even Doom is something that I play about once a year.
In other words, I really do not bother.
For my occasional gaming needs I use an old 486 with 16M ram. The
gamebox is loaded with all the latest games: Doom, DOom II,
Syndicate, Lemmings... As you can see, I'm not really that much
into games :D
Thanks for the hint, anyway. I will look into the display
adapters that you mentioned, they might actually fit my ancient
iron.
Reid
institution when I discovered that my CL-GD5436 based 1MB PCI card was
incompatible with all of the drivers available for the CL-GD5436. I went
out and spent about $40 CDN, on a brand new SiS 6326 8MB PCI. I pulled out
the 1MB and stuck in this one. I was slightly dissapointed when the Win3x
drivers on the CD were missing, as it said that they were on disc. I went
directly to the SiS website and downloaded their drivers. They work great.
The highest res/colour depth I can do is 800x600x32bitx60Hz due to my 11
year old Compaq SVGA 14" monitor.
Reid
shinguz
> directly to the SiS website and downloaded their drivers. They
work great.
And surprise, surprise. Many of the SiS chipsets have drivers for
NT 3.5x, too. Not a very well known manufacturer and their stuff
is not what I would call "cutting edge", but it works if the box
is not a dedicated games machine.
Older hardware rulez!
Artur Yelchishchev
<dev...@punkass.com> wrote:
[ SiS ]
> Not a very well known manufacturer and their stuff
>is not what I would call "cutting edge",
SiS is a "not a very well known manufacturer"?!? It's here for
ages, and this brand have long story of good reputation, starting
from i386 mainboard chipsets, or even 286...
WBR,
Artur
shinguz
When it comes to display adapters, no. Everyone and their dog
Barney knows about Diamond, NVidia, Matrox etc, but SiS is
usually not mentioned when displays are discussed. A pity, as a
matter of fact.
SiS is known when a bunch of hackers happen to be in the same
place, it's just not a household name like GeForce. The SiS brand
is just something that works without really making a big noise.
Robert Riebisch
> ages, and this brand have long story of good reputation, starting
"Good"? Umm, their graphic chips are really slow and most network
drivers are full of bugs. ;-)
Robert Riebisch
--
"Kennen Sie das auch? Alle anderen Postings sehen schöner aus?
Und sind viel besser zu lesen? Das muß nicht sein! Ein Blick auf
*** http://quoting.is-easy.de/ ***
und für nullkommanuffzich haben auch Sie schöne Postings."
Artur Yelchishchev
<dev...@punkass.com> wrote:
>> SiS is a "not a very well known manufacturer"?!?
>
>When it comes to display adapters, no.
Agreed, but manufacturer itself is still widely known, IMHO! :-)
Cheers,
Artur
Artur Yelchishchev
<Robert....@epost.de> wrote:
[ SiS ]
>> this brand have long story of good reputation,
>
>"Good"? Umm, their graphic chips are really slow and most network
>drivers are full of bugs. ;-)
Correct, but please note, that graphics chips from, e.g., Intel,
are often terrible (i740 for example) - should we call it "not a
very well known manufacturer" then? Or Realtek with its widely
used (and quite shitty) cheap NICs? :-)
Cheers,
Artur
shinguz
:-)
>
OK, OK, you win! ;)
Fact is, I did not really think about anything else except video
adapters. SiS does produce a lot of other things, too.
Artur Yelchishchev
<dev...@punkass.com> wrote:
>> Agreed, but manufacturer itself is still widely known, IMHO!
>:-)
>
>OK, OK, you win! ;)
:-))
Best wishes,
Artur
Robert Riebisch
> Correct, but please note, that graphics chips from, e.g., Intel,
> are often terrible (i740 for example) - should we call it "not a
ACK
> very well known manufacturer" then? Or Realtek with its widely
No. I just wanted to give a statement about "good". I know SiS really
good, because their chips are used in Acer computers often.
> used (and quite shitty) cheap NICs? :-)
But these work good in DOS (NDIS2 & packet). ;-)
Artur Yelchishchev
<Robert....@epost.de> wrote:
[ Realtek ]
>> (and quite shitty) cheap NICs? :-)
>
>But these work good in DOS (NDIS2 & packet). ;-)
Can't say for relatively new PCI cards under DOS, but on Win9x
systems I've had bad experience with them quite often - mostly,
with 8139-based. Old ISA cards were not bad, BTW...
Cheers,
Artur
Reid
suppose it's just the RealTek drivers were really crappy.
Reid