Solved Windows 3.1 SVGA or higher resolution

August 10, 2019 at 07:28:51
Specs: Windows 3.1
Hello,

we had to update the Mainboard of an PC, it was running Win 3.1 and we want to get anleast 800x600 Resolution back. We tried a view things with different DRV Files. But did not get it working.
The mainboard is a D945GCLF2:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/s...

it would be awesome if you cold help me, my 74 year old neighbor will thankful to you


See More: Windows 3.1 SVGA or higher resolution

Report •

✔ Best Answer
August 12, 2019 at 00:09:21
Or you could try the driver here: https://bearwindows.zcm.com.au/win3... patched for VESA support.


#1
August 10, 2019 at 08:30:33
What type video chip is in the machine (the motherboard info doesn't mention anything). That's what you need to determine the correct driver to install. And remember, the video has to be changed through "Program Manager" ---> "Main" ---> "Windows Setup" menu (not through "Control Panel" like later versions of Windows). If you can't gain access to Windows, then drop back to C:\WINDOWS and run setup from there (see my response in below link):

https://www.computing.net/answers/w...

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Report •

#2
August 10, 2019 at 09:29:11
Yes i was using the windows setup, mostly from dos, there it is more easily accessible. As far as i understand it, it is an integrated graphics solution. I can get vga working but not more. I think there is no suport for such new devices.

Report •

#3
August 10, 2019 at 09:58:06
" I can get vga working but not more. I think there is no suport for such new devices."

So did your neighbor have 800x600 running before or not? What was the update that was applied? And what is the reason for staying with Windows 3.1?

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
August 11, 2019 at 04:51:40
yes he used 800x600 but it was on a different Mainboard. we had to change it to this one. Because he wants to use his 3.1 and the software he uses in there, for the rest he uses linux.

Report •

#5
August 11, 2019 at 10:16:05
"yes he used 800x600 but it was on a different Mainboard. we had to change it to this one. Because he wants to use his 3.1 and the software he uses in there...

That would explain the loss of the 800x600 resolution.

Not sure why this particular motherboard was chosen, since from the specs, that'd be bigtime overkill just to run Windows 3.1. An old 386/486/early Pentium would have been a better overall choice.

It's possible (but unlikely) that someone has developed drivers for the Intel 82945GC chipset that's on the board. Finding such will likely prove difficult, but you might want to try old generic SVGA.EXE driver. If nothing else it theoretically would do 640x480x256 colors should you wish to try. Located here (just under the "Video Drivers" section"

http://www.win31.de/edrivers.htm

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Report •

#6
August 12, 2019 at 00:09:21
✔ Best Answer
Or you could try the driver here: https://bearwindows.zcm.com.au/win3... patched for VESA support.

Report •

#7
September 12, 2019 at 14:07:35
No, a 386 / 486 sucks, an early pentium would work, perfect would be a pentium 233 mmx or an early pentium II. That kind of hardware you can find for free nowadays.
Tho I agree with you that his board is a bit of overkill, indeed.
Hardware from late 90's is the best for windows 3.1.

message edited by Montana7


Report •

#8
September 12, 2019 at 18:04:37
"Hardware from late 90's is the best for windows 3.1."

By the late 90's, any manufacturer of peripherals had long since discontinued support (i.e.---drivers) for Windows 3.1. And USB 1.1 and AGP devices started showing up around '98; an "unshoehorned" Windows 3.1 could never take advantage of either. RAM over 64MB (common in late 90's machine & unheard of in early 90's machines) could not have been natively taken advantage of either, since the MS/PC-DOS limit was 64MB (and often Windows 3.1 slowed down after 32MB). 3.1's heyday was from it's inception (April 1992) until the arrival of Win95 (August 1995)

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Report •

#9
September 16, 2019 at 09:16:42
Not true. Overcoming the 64 mb limit is just a matter of the right dos version, piece of cake. Most of big video card manufacturers still made drivers for windows 3.1 in the late 90's, like Nvidia tnt, 3dfx Voodoo 3, s3 virge, Ati Rage II, Matrox millenium... So did excellent sound cars like creative awe64 or Yamaha ymf7xx, and the most common network cards. And so many printers. That is all you need basically. Agp cards with appropriate drivers work fine, as a matter of fact they tend to crash a lot less than their pci siblings on higher color modes. Some usb storage devices also work with the right dos drivers.

A 486 works ok with software from 1993 but the best still compatible with 3.1 was made 3 or 4 years later and would run unbearably slow on an 486. Windows 3.1 flies on a late pentium / early II, which you can easily get for free. You could of course also stick these old cards in a core2duo but there is no point really.


Report •

#10
June 9, 2020 at 18:17:03
I would like to add that windows 3.11 works really well in DOSBox and even better with DOSBox-X. A raspberry pi is probably sufficient hardware for this.

DOSBox emulates an S3 graphics card so the driver for that are usually recommend on sites that describes how to install DOSBox with Windows 3.11.

Note that for me the mouse didn't work after installation of Windows. It turned out rebooting DOS wasn't enough but I had to exit DOSBox and start it over again.

So far all applications that I tried works.


Report •

Ask Question