betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-18, 13:58:

I suspect a 640x400 256 colour mode would work but I presume it would be very messy under windows. A few DOS apps such as PC Paintbrush do have options for this resolution on specific cards. I did wonder if it was an option which wouldn't work generically.

It depends on the applications, I suppose.
Many enhanced CGA boards had a 640x400 mode. Laptops and portables with plasma screens, too.
So that viewport wasn't being unheard of.

(A few VBE games may also support mode 100h, which is 640x400 256c; it works with 256KB of Video RAM.
Some Windows 2.x SVGA graphics drivers also had that resolution supported. Like that of PVGA1A).

Before Windows 3.1, EGA was still sort of a reference to developers or seen as a base line configuration and thus many Windows applications did fit on a 640x350 screen.
Hercules encapsulated that resolution, too.

Windows 3.0 was kind of a turning point, I believe. Both VGA and Super VGA had quickly gained ground among end users.
The 800x600 resolution was possible on many basic VGA monitors
if interlacing and a 56 Hz refresh rate were being tolerated by the users.

But yes, 640x480 in 256c is what many Windows games expected.
They even simulated a "full screen" mode with 640x480 as a basis (thinking of Myst, Fortress etc).
If the Windows desktop is running at 800x600 and up, these games will look a bit "zoomed out" with their game graphics being centered.

The Windows Compatibility Tab in newer Windows releases even has two options for both "run in 256 colors" and "run in 640x480 resolution" because of that.

Edit: That's maybe a bit off-topic, but older Betas of Windows 3.1 did support Super VGA in Real-Mode.
The supplied drivers, do, I mean. If they don't do anything funny, a NEC V20 should be sufficient.

I'm just mentioning this, because it could provide a testbed for modifying the existing Super VGA drivers.
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 differ quite a bit at some point, especially drivers.
Having a Windows 3.1 prototype working on an XT could ease quite a few things. 🙂

Edit: The screenshot attached shows the older 800x600 16 driver supplied with Windows 3.1.
If you notice closely, it says it uses VBE.
It's not limited to known SVGA chipsets of its day, thus.

Maybe that's also true for the 256c types that shipped with WfW 3.11.
Maybe the 640x480c 256c driver can be modified to use 640x400 256c instead.
Either natively via Cirrus routines or by using VBE mode 100h.

OK, I'll try Build 34 (thanks WinWorld!)

I've managed to dump the original BIOS, please message me I'm happy to share. Public URL seemed a bit foolhardy.

Jo22 wrote on 2023-10-18, 21:07:

It depends on the applications, I suppose. Many enhanced CGA boards had a 640x400 mode. Laptops and portables with plasma screen […]
Show full quote

betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-18, 13:58:

I suspect a 640x400 256 colour mode would work but I presume it would be very messy under windows. A few DOS apps such as PC Paintbrush do have options for this resolution on specific cards. I did wonder if it was an option which wouldn't work generically.

It depends on the applications, I suppose.
Many enhanced CGA boards had a 640x400 mode. Laptops and portables with plasma screens, too.
So that viewport wasn't being unheard of.

(A few VBE games may also support mode 100h, which is 640x400 256c; it works with 256KB of Video RAM.
Some Windows 2.x SVGA graphics drivers also had that resolution supported. Like that of PVGA1A).

Before Windows 3.1, EGA was still sort of a reference to developers or seen as a base line configuration and thus many Windows applications did fit on a 640x350 screen.
Hercules encapsulated that resolution, too.

Windows 3.0 was kind of a turning point, I believe. Both VGA and Super VGA had quickly gained ground among end users.
The 800x600 resolution was possible on many basic VGA monitors
if interlacing and a 56 Hz refresh rate were being tolerated by the users.

But yes, 640x480 in 256c is what many Windows games expected.
They even simulated a "full screen" mode with 640x480 as a basis (thinking of Myst, Fortress etc).
If the Windows desktop is running at 800x600 and up, these games will look a bit "zoomed out" with their game graphics being centered.

The Windows Compatibility Tab in newer Windows releases even has two options for both "run in 256 colors" and "run in 640x480 resolution" because of that.

Edit: That's maybe a bit off-topic, but older Betas of Windows 3.1 did support Super VGA in Real-Mode.
The supplied drivers, do, I mean. If they don't do anything funny, a NEC V20 should be sufficient.

I'm just mentioning this, because it could provide a testbed for modifying the existing Super VGA drivers.
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 differ quite a bit at some point, especially drivers.
Having a Windows 3.1 prototype working on an XT could ease quite a few things. 🙂

Edit: The screenshot attached shows the older 800x600 16 driver supplied with Windows 3.1.
If you notice closely, it says it uses VBE.
It's not limited to known SVGA chipsets of its day, thus.

Maybe that's also true for the 256c types that shipped with WfW 3.11.
Maybe the 640x480c 256c driver can be modified to use 640x400 256c instead.
Either natively via Cirrus routines or by using VBE mode 100h.

Interesting, its a no-go - Win 3.1 b340 setup complains immediately that it wants a 286 minimum, even using the /r switch.

betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-19, 00:18:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-10-18, 21:07:

It depends on the applications, I suppose. Many enhanced CGA boards had a 640x400 mode. Laptops and portables with plasma screen […]
Show full quote

betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-18, 13:58:

I suspect a 640x400 256 colour mode would work but I presume it would be very messy under windows. A few DOS apps such as PC Paintbrush do have options for this resolution on specific cards. I did wonder if it was an option which wouldn't work generically.

It depends on the applications, I suppose.
Many enhanced CGA boards had a 640x400 mode. Laptops and portables with plasma screens, too.
So that viewport wasn't being unheard of.

(A few VBE games may also support mode 100h, which is 640x400 256c; it works with 256KB of Video RAM.
Some Windows 2.x SVGA graphics drivers also had that resolution supported. Like that of PVGA1A).

Before Windows 3.1, EGA was still sort of a reference to developers or seen as a base line configuration and thus many Windows applications did fit on a 640x350 screen.
Hercules encapsulated that resolution, too.

Windows 3.0 was kind of a turning point, I believe. Both VGA and Super VGA had quickly gained ground among end users.
The 800x600 resolution was possible on many basic VGA monitors
if interlacing and a 56 Hz refresh rate were being tolerated by the users.

But yes, 640x480 in 256c is what many Windows games expected.
They even simulated a "full screen" mode with 640x480 as a basis (thinking of Myst, Fortress etc).
If the Windows desktop is running at 800x600 and up, these games will look a bit "zoomed out" with their game graphics being centered.

The Windows Compatibility Tab in newer Windows releases even has two options for both "run in 256 colors" and "run in 640x480 resolution" because of that.

Edit: That's maybe a bit off-topic, but older Betas of Windows 3.1 did support Super VGA in Real-Mode.
The supplied drivers, do, I mean. If they don't do anything funny, a NEC V20 should be sufficient.

I'm just mentioning this, because it could provide a testbed for modifying the existing Super VGA drivers.
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 differ quite a bit at some point, especially drivers.
Having a Windows 3.1 prototype working on an XT could ease quite a few things. 🙂

Edit: The screenshot attached shows the older 800x600 16 driver supplied with Windows 3.1.
If you notice closely, it says it uses VBE.
It's not limited to known SVGA chipsets of its day, thus.

Maybe that's also true for the 256c types that shipped with WfW 3.11.
Maybe the 640x480c 256c driver can be modified to use 640x400 256c instead.
Either natively via Cirrus routines or by using VBE mode 100h.

Interesting, its a no-go - Win 3.1 b340 setup complains immediately that it wants a 286 minimum, even using the /r switch.

Odd I thought there was a v20 in there that has some 286 instructions

rmay635703 wrote on 2023-10-19, 02:03:

betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-19, 00:18:

Jo22 wrote on 2023-10-18, 21:07:

It depends on the applications, I suppose. Many enhanced CGA boards had a 640x400 mode. Laptops and portables with plasma screen […]
Show full quote

It depends on the applications, I suppose.
Many enhanced CGA boards had a 640x400 mode. Laptops and portables with plasma screens, too.
So that viewport wasn't being unheard of.

(A few VBE games may also support mode 100h, which is 640x400 256c; it works with 256KB of Video RAM.
Some Windows 2.x SVGA graphics drivers also had that resolution supported. Like that of PVGA1A).

Before Windows 3.1, EGA was still sort of a reference to developers or seen as a base line configuration and thus many Windows applications did fit on a 640x350 screen.
Hercules encapsulated that resolution, too.

Windows 3.0 was kind of a turning point, I believe. Both VGA and Super VGA had quickly gained ground among end users.
The 800x600 resolution was possible on many basic VGA monitors
if interlacing and a 56 Hz refresh rate were being tolerated by the users.

But yes, 640x480 in 256c is what many Windows games expected.
They even simulated a "full screen" mode with 640x480 as a basis (thinking of Myst, Fortress etc).
If the Windows desktop is running at 800x600 and up, these games will look a bit "zoomed out" with their game graphics being centered.

The Windows Compatibility Tab in newer Windows releases even has two options for both "run in 256 colors" and "run in 640x480 resolution" because of that.

Edit: That's maybe a bit off-topic, but older Betas of Windows 3.1 did support Super VGA in Real-Mode.
The supplied drivers, do, I mean. If they don't do anything funny, a NEC V20 should be sufficient.

I'm just mentioning this, because it could provide a testbed for modifying the existing Super VGA drivers.
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 differ quite a bit at some point, especially drivers.
Having a Windows 3.1 prototype working on an XT could ease quite a few things. 🙂

Edit: The screenshot attached shows the older 800x600 16 driver supplied with Windows 3.1.
If you notice closely, it says it uses VBE.
It's not limited to known SVGA chipsets of its day, thus.

Maybe that's also true for the 256c types that shipped with WfW 3.11.
Maybe the 640x480c 256c driver can be modified to use 640x400 256c instead.
Either natively via Cirrus routines or by using VBE mode 100h.

Interesting, its a no-go - Win 3.1 b340 setup complains immediately that it wants a 286 minimum, even using the /r switch.

Odd I thought there was a v20 in there that has some 286 instructions

Hm. I thought the same. But I admit I have merely tested it in emulation so far, which barely supports V20 yet. 😔

On the other hand, there's a video of a YT user that shows Windows 3.1 running on a NEC V20..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PNyXFdrlkw

Odd I thought there was a v20 in there that has some 286 instructions

Yes, it isn't a 286 though. It's functionally a 186 - it just has a few refinements.

Hm. I thought the same. But I admit I have merely tested it in emulation so far, which barely supports V20 yet. 😔

On the other hand, there's a video of a YT user that shows Windows 3.1 running on a NEC V20..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PNyXFdrlkw

I think that's part of a special russian project, I saw it on my travels. It's also beta 034f, whereas winworld has 034e - maybe that's a factor, I don't know.

I'm excited to report that FastLynx 3.3 works beautifully between Windows 11 and my Book 8088, using a PL2303 based USB > RS232 cable (a DTech DT-KJ5102B).
Important things of note - change the COM port to COM 1,2,3,4 under Device Manager on modern PC, and within FastLynx set the baud rate to 38,400 (if connecting to a Book 8088).
I managed to upload the stub to the DOS computer with no issues! Just a couple of commands you have to type in under DOS - but it's shown right there on the transfer window.
I'm so happy to see that FastLynx is still available to buy, it's still so useful! Sewell Direct, if you are interested - none of the in-app links work anymore, but you get the v2.01 DOS full version, manuals etc as part of the full version download.

Most USB<>RS232 adapters should in theory work with the caveat that some implement auto crossover switching, and some don't. i.e. they can behave as either a straight through or a crossover "null modem" at the 9 pin end. The ones that just work straight through, should then work with a "null modem dongle" which has the RX/TX and other lines swapped. This is because to the spec, both computers are DTE, data terminal equipment, where the straight through wiring is for DCE data communication equipment, like a modem or other device that you'd need to connect to a "terminal".

+1

Another thing to keep in mind is the voltage difference. It's not critical for simple data transfer, but good to know.

A real V.24 port on PC has +/- 12v levels, while USB/Serial converters do use TTL levels of +5v and 0v.
Or more recently, +3.3v and 0v.
On/Off levels vs positive/negative levels, sot to say.

Again, it's not critical, because USB/Serial converters with a DE9 plug are 12v tolerant.
- The USB/Serial PCBs for embedded use (Arduino, Raspberry Pi etc) are not, though.

What's problematic, though, is that the RS-232's threshold is at 3v, however. A +3.3v signal is borderline.
The official range is -15v to -3v and +3v to +15v.

So if the cable is too long or badly shielded, the RS-232 may have difficulties to recognize the
+3.3v signal as a positive level.

A MAX232 can help converting the levels properly, but it can handle 2 signals simultaneously, at best. Which are RXD and TXD, usually.
So a simple 3-wire null-modem connection is the best that's possible here.

betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-20, 16:18:

I'm so happy to see that FastLynx is still available to buy, it's still so useful!

Probably too late to save you the $20, but Dave Dunfield's "DDLINK" is a nice, free alternative to FastLynx.

DDLINK: Easily move files between/To/From DOS systems

Cloudschatze wrote on 2023-10-20, 20:53:

betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-20, 16:18:

I'm so happy to see that FastLynx is still available to buy, it's still so useful!

Probably too late to save you the $20, but Dave Dunfield's "DDLINK" is a nice, free alternative to FastLynx.

DDLINK: Easily move files between/To/From DOS systems

It's okay, I'm aware of DDLINK - I like the user-friendly Windows console of FastLynx, just personal preference.
I've for a short 0.5m version of the cable which may be why it works nicely 😀

I'm having a bad time with my oldnet WifiModem though.... does not want to be recognised!

Is there any more modern alternative to WinImage? I am looking at what I use it for, and I'd have to get professional at £65 which really feels steep.
I need to be able to image bootable floppies of different sizes, and work with hard disk IMA and VHD images (up to 512mb CF cards no bigger really).

betamax80 wrote on 2023-10-21, 12:58:

Is there any more modern alternative to WinImage? I am looking at what I use it for, and I'd have to get professional at £65 which really feels steep.
I need to be able to image bootable floppies of different sizes, and work with hard disk IMA and VHD images (up to 512mb CF cards no bigger really).

Floppy disk imaging - what program to use?

Herne data has a shareware program that worked quite well for imaging pretty much anything, called Maxidisk

It’s what I use on vintage computers to image vintage floppy disks (non-dos or otherwise)

Book8088 has replied to me saying "you will have a lot of problems using the 8087" - essentially, I read that as FPU installation is an unsupported feature.
I've also had the supplier offer to send a replacement screen if that stuck pixel is persistent and I can take a photo - so that's fair.

I was wondering if anyone had any clever ways of installing software on this thing from multiple floppy images? One can of course install via something like DOSBox and copy over the installed directory via a USB drive, but I was wondering if there was any DOS utility that could read floppy images and assign a drive letter, or if there was e.g. a TSR that could change SUBST mapping via a key combination to switch disks during installation.

KarlG wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:34:

I was wondering if anyone had any clever ways of installing software on this thing from multiple floppy images? One can of course install via something like DOSBox and copy over the installed directory via a USB drive, but I was wondering if there was any DOS utility that could read floppy images and assign a drive letter, or if there was e.g. a TSR that could change SUBST mapping via a key combination to switch disks during installation.

Possible answer is here:
Virtual floppy drive under MS-DOS?
Working TurboImage link in in the end. Hope it works for you, i haven't tested it on my Book8088.
Sorry, it requires 2MB XMS to run

n0p wrote:

Possible answer is here: Virtual floppy drive under MS-DOS? Working TurboImage link in in the end. Hope it works for you, i have […]
Show full quote

Possible answer is here:
Virtual floppy drive under MS-DOS?
Working TurboImage link in in the end. Hope it works for you, i haven't tested it on my Book8088.
Sorry, it requires 2MB XMS to run

I guess common sense would say that anything that works with floppy images directly would realistically need to be able to load the whole image into RAM, but I didn't think of that. Maybe there's something that implements my other idea, though. If not, it's not vital, anyway.