I can't seem to get windows to change to a higher color setting other then 16 color mode. (I get that error upon restart that says something about the adapter type being wrong or that the selected mode doesn't work with the adapter)

I can't seem to find the currect drivers for this video card. All that I know is that it is an old Paradise "PVGA" that was made in 1988. As far as I can tell this card has 512k of ram and should at least go to 256 color 640,480 mode.

The drivers that windows uses say that it can go to 16bit mode when on 640,480, but nothing beyond 16 colors will work. (though I did recently manage to get it to 16 color 800,600 mode)

Any ideas on how to fix this problem?

Here is an image that shows what the card looks like and what is printed on it: (copy and paste to address bar)

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1412/videocardsj5.jpg

Try downloading AIDA 32 to tell you exactly what video chip you have then either go to the mfg website ot to driversguide.com
You also may try start/run and type in msconfig then hit enter
then click on the advanced tab near the bottom then in the boxes make sure the is NO check in the VGA 640x480x16 box

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

Also while searching for the correct drivers you may try doing a Google Search to assist you

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

Here are some drivers I located that may help PARADISE

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

I will try AISA 32 thing.

I tried Google, believe me, I spent 2 hours searching google for this thing. Remind me to stay away from Paradise video cards!

I'll post back if I still can't get the card to work. If all else fails, I'll will just go on ebay and search for a different card, one that I know has working drivers.

Oh and that paradise site you provided only provides Win3.1 drivers, which don't work with Win9x.

Driversguide
NCR

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

Ok I got some addition information from the video BIOS

003056-007 Paradise Systems INC. 1987-1988

I still havn't found any drivers.

I came close with that driver guide site, but it only had the windows 3.1 drivers to it.

98 has some native drivers for Paradise and WD video. Choose to update your display driver, then--NEXT--DISPLAY LIST OF ALL DRIVERS. . .--SHOW ALL HARDWARE. Then scroll down the manufacturer's list and try the various paradise and WD drivers. WD shows one for 512K.

When trying the drivers you'll probably get a message saying they're the wrong ones but go ahead and try them. If they don't work or you get a blue screen, boot to safe mode and change the display adapter back to the one that showed originally--probably one of the generic ones.

here is another lead for you
Paradise

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

I have tried them all

Maybe the card only has 64K of memory? I don't entirely know, but the native drivers say it can go to 256. I sure hope this card does have the memory to work at 256 colors. I can tried adding 640,400 to the registry. (windows doesn't consider that a standard res). 640,400 is kinda small, but at least it would work. (640,400 is not a typo, it is a wierd res that windows doesn't have by default)

I'll try that other link you gave me, but I am running out of hope for this video card.

Also see if any of these may work
DriversGuide
Or if all else fails buy a new $15-20.00 card
Good luck!

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

Well, I can't use driverguide anymore, it seems I have reached my download limit.

Oh well, I will try fiddling with res settings. I will probably get a replacement off of ebay.

I've never seen a VGA card with only 64. It may have as little as 256. Does your motherboard have the VL extended slots? I've got a few of those cards.

How is the display adapter identified? If it's one of the generic ones then the proper drivers aren't installed. If it already shows as a paradise adapter then you're probably stuck with the colors the way they are.

Nah, take a look at the photo I put a link to in the first post, it will show you what the card looks like. As far as I can tell, there is no extension slots. There is that wierd mystery jack on the top of the video card. Any info on that?

See if this may help with your dip switches,
SW1 ON: Multi-frequency monitor attached
OFF: fixed-frequency (31.5kHz only?)
SW2 ON: 'PS/2 mode'
OFF: 'AT-mode' (= PVGA extensions enabled?)
SW3 unknown (unused?)
SW4 ON: 16 bit VGA bus interface
OFF: 8 bit VGA bus interface
Found on this PC3386SX's

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

Hmm... Interesting I will try fiddling with those switches. Switch one changes the frequency for the 800,600 mode switch 2 will do the same, but for a different res. I have a crappy monitor, so some of those switch settings might not work for me. (monitor can only go to 60Hz on 800,600 and 46hz interlaced on 1024,768.

Currently, all switches except SW1 is off.

It'd be the motherboard that would have the VL slots. They're additional slots behind the regular ISA ones that look kind of like PCI slots. I was wondering because I have a few of those cards. I also have at least one Trident ISA card.

Currection, all but SW2 is off

Oh.. yes, my computer has 2 of those.

Also the card shows 8 memory chips. Post back what is written on them and I may be able to tell you how much you've got.

The following is written on all the memory chips:

First Line: Japan 8729HCK
Second Line: TMM41464AP-12

Oh and I tried the jumper switches. No effect.

See if this may help with your dip switches,
SW1 ON: Multi-frequency monitor attached
OFF: fixed-frequency (31.5kHz only?)
SW2 ON: 'PS/2 mode'
OFF: 'AT-mode' (= PVGA extensions enabled?)
SW3 unknown (unused?)
SW4 ON: 16 bit VGA bus interface
OFF: 8 bit VGA bus interface
Found on this PC3386SX's

" Please Post back to let us know if we helped "

I have tried all jumper switches and only was able to get the video card to work in 16 shades of grayscale (lol).

I even tried manually setting the res to 256 color 320,400 mode (that mode would make for some really cramped desktop space lol) (the mode that the boot logo uses) and still get the same error, so it has to be the drivers, since the boot logo shows up fine. I have gotten the boot logo res to work on all computers before I came across this one. So I am guessing that it has to do with the drivers.

Oh and I couldn't get 800,600 16 color mode to show up properly on my monitor untill I turned SW2 to the on position. So SW2 has something to do with refresh rates. SW1 will change the refresh rates for the DOS res (when BIOS screen is up or when in DOS mode)

When I turned on SW1, my monitor got all screwed up when DOS came up or when the bios screen came up. So SW1 has to do the the really low res refresh rates. I don't know what SW3, and SW4 does. One of them put my video card in greyscale.

Those are 64x4 chips. It takes two to get 64K at 8 bits per byte. So there's a total of 256K on the card. If I did the math right, 640 x 480 resolution gives 307,200 pixels. 256 colors requires 8 bits/pixal. So you'd need 307,200 x 8 bits. With 8 bits per byte that would be 307.2K digital bytes or 300K binary bytes. So you've got enough memory for 256 colors if you can find the right drivers.

256K is the minimum for VGA (16 colours) - to get more colours & higher resolutions, 512K is required

Saying that XP is the most stable MS OS is like saying that asparagus is the most articulate vegetable

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

... mainly 'cause there are no 300K VRAM chips

Saying that XP is the most stable MS OS is like saying that asparagus is the most articulate vegetable

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Yeah, I misspoke. He's got 256K and he needs at least 300 for 256 colors, with 512 being the next logical ram configuration.

Sure - possibly chips could be added, a lot of those old ISA cards could be bumped up to half a meg of VRAM or so, super for Win31 ; )

Saying that XP is the most stable MS OS is like saying that asparagus is the most articulate vegetable

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Seems like upgrading the video card is the only logical solution. Maybe an old Trident 1 or 2MB PCI card? or a "newer" ISA card?

What are you trying to do with this 33MHz/16MB antique anyway? It's best suited for Win3.1, possibly Win95. Win98SE must really drag along.

Win98 isn't too slow. Its funny to see how slow it will run with turbo turned off. And I have upgraded the CPU to 75MHZ, though the motherboard will only go to 50MHz.

I will try and find some special drivers that will force windows into 256 color mode.

The boot logo at startup is in 256 color mode, and I was always able to get WIndows to use the same res and color setting as the boot logo, however with this perticular computer, it doesn't want to for some reason.

Oh and Windows98 is the only operating system that I have. (the only other is Windows XP, and that of coarse won't run on a computer that old)

You said yourself the card is dated 1988, 10 yrs before Win98 was released, so it's hard to imagine drivers being available for it.

Obviously you enjoy a good struggle. LOL!

Good luck...

Lol, indeed. Anyway, I noticed that there is a error on the resource page of the device (in device manager)

I see the following when viewing the resource tab:

"The resources this device is using do not match any of its known configurations"

It suggests setting it manually though none of the settings (except last one) are even changable. Also, this doesn't seem to affect the status of the driver, since it doesn't the familier ! symbal next to it in device manager. It seems to load fine.

Here is the current configuration of the card in device manager:

Input/Output: 03B0-03BB
Input/Output: 03C0-03DF
Memory Range: 000A0000-000AFFFF
Memory Range: 000B8000-000BFFFF

Some of the default drivers have a third memory range (it has simler numbers).

Windows will only allow me to change the last memory range setting. The others I will get an error that says that the setting isn't configurable or something like that.

Maybe this is way I can't get windows to work right with this video card.

"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat."

http://bullwinkle.toonzone.net/heyrock2.wav

Exactly (heh) - if you don't have sufficient VRAM for the higher resolutions, then no amount of wishing or configuring will change that fact.

Those ISA cards are slow - too sluggish even to play original DooM decently

Saying that XP is the most stable MS OS is like saying that asparagus is the most articulate vegetable

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Then why can't I get windows to use 320,400 256? The boot logo uses that and shows up fine. I have gotten windows to use that res setting before.

Oh and I plan to dual boot Win3.1. That way I will see how far this card can go.

Ok I have installed Win3.1 and used the Win3.1 drivers. I have verified that this card can only go to 800x600 16 color mode.(maybe 1024x768 16 colors, but I havn't tried it)

I will see about replacing the video card.

"Then why can't I get windows to use 320,400 256?"

Because you don't have that much - from DAVE's response (#27):

"So there's a *total* of 256K"

So... do you see where we're going with this??

The boot logo is 16 colours

First time running Windows?

"I will see about replacing the video card"

Now *there's* a plan - only took forty odd posts to (begin to) convince you

Saying that XP is the most stable MS OS is like saying that asparagus is the most articulate vegetable

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

At 800 x 600 and 16 colors you need at least 240K so as you found, the card can handle that.

And although your card may supply resolutions lower than 640 x 480 I don't think 9x supports them.

I think you mentioned in your other thread that you have VLB slots so finding a VLB video card would probably be the way to go. I've seen some with 2 meg on them.

I have been able to get Win9x to go to lowar resolutions, and even got Windows to go to 320,240. But on this system, it doesn't want to, even though the card supports those resolutions.

Is there any VESA related drivers that this card might need?

Heck, I even got WinXP to go to 320,400. (would make for some really cramped desktop space though, lol)

Well, I was only going by the 98 minimum requirements which say you need a VGA monitor. But I guess if you connect a VGA monitor to satisfy windows you might be able to force it to a lower resolution.

I suppose if you could get one card to go lower but not this one then it's likely due to drivers. But I wouldn't know about any other drivers for that card. If you're just trying to experiment to see if you can do it, well, that's one thing. If you want to get a halfway decent system set up you'll need another card.

I have gotten Win3.1 to use 640,400 256 color mode successfuly. Also, I downloaded some DOS VESA drivers and when they load, they report that my card has 256K of ram.

Also, the VESA also reports the model of the card as PVGA1A31. This is also what the Win3.1 drivers say.

Yeah the 3.1 drivers that give 256 colors are for a resolution of 640 x 400 instead of 640 x 480. That's as much as 256K of video ram will give. If you can install 3.1 with those video drivers and then upgrade to 98 it may keep the 640 x 400 resolution.

How's the progress going on finding another card?

Ok I have gotten VERY close to getting windows into 256 color mode. I used some of the Western Digital 3.1 drivers for Win98 and they seem to work, but WD drivers don't seem to have a 640,400 mode driver. Any help on that? I did find a 512,480 16M color driver that seems to work with both Win3.1 (it works because it didn't give any error message like the 640,480 256 driver did).

Whats interesting, is that when Win3.1 loaded the WD 512x480 16M driver, it seems to work, since it didn't crash back to the DOS prompt and windows seems to load, however, the screen remains black. (maybe monitor related?)

It does this when Win98 loads this driver as well, so at least I know the Western Digital 3.1 drivers work with Win98. I just need a 640,400 res driver. (the Paradise 3.1 drivers don't work with Win98)

Any third party Win3.1 drivers that have 640,400 265 color mode that will work with Win9x? (Unless you know of any Western Digital driver what has it).

I have found 3 potention replacement video cards that I am seriously considering:

S3/Trident 1MB ISA VGA (this one is a VESA local bus card, sicne it has the additional hookup for the VESA local bus, so this one I am favoring)

Win/TV Celebrity NTSC 4701 ISA VXP500 (seems to have at least 1mb of video ram and also has a TV tuner!)

Trident ISA TVGA8900D-R

Only thing now is to choose which one. Which one of the 3 do you think is the best.
(I am thinking of the VESA local bus one, since I think it would be faster then the others)

Also, I have Microsoft's Virtual PC 2004 and decided to test the standard video card drivers, one interesting side note is that the Standard Display Adaptor driver doesn't want to go into 256 color mode (even though the emulated card supports it), just like the drivers on my real computer. So theoreticly, I could use Virtual PC to test generic drivers to see if they work.

But when Win98 had the proper drivers installed for the emulated card, the 640,400 resolution worked with no problems. (seems like 640,400 is a wide-screen type res, and would probably look good on a widescreen monitor)

I just need to find some VESA compatible generic drivers for Win98.

You're spending WAY too much time & effort on this antique. Go out & invest $3 in another ISA video card & be done with it.

lol indeed, but I need to get a usable computer in the mean time. (it could be weeks/months before I can get a replacement)

So for I managed to get Win98 into 320,480 256 color mode! First time I have seen Win98 in 256 colors on this computer. Then I used quickres to see what happens when I try to switch it to 640,400 mode. Well, it didn't work currectly, since when it switched, the res setting stayed the same, but the desktop was 640,400, causing a wierd bug that made the desktop "interlace over itself". What I mean is that the full desktop was wraped onto it self on the 320,480 res. When I moved the mouse to the edge of the screen it would then wrap over to the other side then continue again to the edge and then would stop. So, I am thinking this could be a DirectX issue, since I only have QuickDraw 1.0 installed. (really old I know)

I will update DirectX to 8.0.

Also, the only way I got it in the 320x resolutions was by installing SciTech Display Doctor. (with a few tweaks)

If I restart windows into the 640,400 mode, it will show the full res, but then the screen would remain black. It would do this on the 512,385, and the 640,358 screen settings as well. (not monitor related, and windows was still running normally since I did hear my joy2mouse program start, so windows didn't freeze).

Ok I have now added a couple more video cards to my possible replacement list.

Here is the full list of video cards that I am considering:

S3 805 86C805-P (Vesa Local Bus ISA)

TRIDENT TGUI9400CXI (Vesa Local Bus ISA)

Win/TV Celebrity NTSC 4701 (standard 16bit ISA)

Trident TVGA8900D-R (standard 16bit ISA)

All cards listed have at least 1mb of ram, but some may have more, I don't know.

So which one of those would be the best choice?

"Vesa Local Bus ISA"

As always, such interesting terminology

Hardly seems life or death, but (all things being equal) VLB is faster than plain old ISA (that's kind of the whole point of the design)

ymmv

Saying that XP is the most stable MS OS is like saying that asparagus is the most articulate vegetable

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

I've had problems with some tridents and 9X and would avoid them. If I suddenly found myself back in 1994 I would probably use the S3.

What kind of problems?

I'd sometimes get a blue screen error. It said the problem was in a file that turned out to be one of trident files. A non-trident card worked fine. As I recall it was a fresh installation on a nothing-fancy PC. I don't recall the chipset but it must have been one of the 1 or 2 meg PCI cards. I was probably using the native 98 drivers. It's been several years but I think it happened more than once with different PCs and trident cards.

Hmm...I will try and avoid the trident if possible.

At the moment, it seems more likly that I will get the S3.

Oh, and the tridents that you had problems with, were they VLB? If not then the peticular trident on the list may not have that problem. (VLB version would probably have different chipset)

I think it was just with the old PCI cards. I don't recall any problems with the VLB cards but it's been quite a while since I've used them.

I will get the S3 since my other VLB cards are no longer available (some one else got to them before me)

I will try and get a replacement video card sometime this or next week. (I will also get a serial mouse, since the computer doesn't have a mouse port).

Thanks to all for helping!

Update: For those who may still be checking this thread. I have finallized a transaction, and my S3 VLB is on its way. This problem is now throughly solved.

For those who are interested in what exactly that I have purchased, here is the link to the item that I have bought:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...

Thanks to all that have tried to help.

Hope it works OK. It looks like it's got 1 meg on it with slots for another meg.

Cool, I wonder if there is a place to find that memory upgrade for it. lol.

Bad news. The VLB card that came in from Ebay was damaged in the Mail. (USPS sucks, and the seller was stupid enough to put it in a bubble wrap bag instead of a box, where it would'ove been safer.

(for those who want to know what type of damage, the pins on the main chip were bent and basicly ruined the card. I have removed the chips from the card and will use them to upgrade the next card I will get from ebay, (its that same brand and stuff and once it comes in I will check for compatibility)

Right now I am still without a card. And the one I have is slow as hell.(its an 8bit ISA card, not even 16bit) (even an old dos game that ran good on an old 25mhZ computer ran like crap on this one).

Well, it seems like I'm out of luck on this one. If I don't get a video card soon, I will just chuck the whole dam computer in the dumpster. (after stripping it of all cables and drives of coarse)