Hello DOS users,

I'm running MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 FWG natively (from SD Card) in
this relatively "modern" Positivo Mobo/Intel Classmate laptop computer
(Intel Atom 64-bit/2GB RAM). I was not able to get Windows running in
386 Enhanced mode; no matter what, the computer always reboots without
notice upon WIN.COM invocation. That was the case for Standard Mode as
well, which I was eventually able to get working by enabling it (copying
WIN.CNF from 3.1's installation) and replacing a VGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} by
CGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} once I figured out the problem was the video driver
shipped with Windows. On that note, the driver I'm using is the SVGA
one patched to work with VESA-compliant cards (the maximum resolution of
this notebook is 1024x600, which is not supported by the driver, and
1024x768 which is supported does not work with it, but 800x600 works
just fine.)

Now I'm able to surf WEB, discuss in newsgroups, talk in IRC, all from
standard mode. I'm posting this from Netscape 3.04Gold running on that
system. However I'd have more freedom of choice and convenience or
features running DOS boxes, for example, if I was able to get 386
Enhanced mode going. Any Ideas on things to try to accomplish that are
very welcome!

Another somewhat serious problem I've been bothered with is the fact
that neither EMM386.EXE nor JEMMEX.EXE can find usable Upper Memory to
allocate for UMBs, even with aggressive scan settings. In fact, neither
can I. I've spent hours upon hours systematically testing I= and X=
directives just to get some isolated 4kb free pages at the end of the
family of upper memory segments (..., BEFF-BFFF, CEFF-CFFF, ...), but
even then the system becomes unstable. MSD memory usage reports didn't
seem reliable. By the looks of it the whole UMA is used by the BIOS or
hardware devices, or something. Help with this would be greatly
appreciated as well!

Thanks!

--
http://oitofelix.sdf.org/

I am wondering if this system uses an EFI "bios" or an actual BIOS? I am not
sure how well an emulated BIOS will function with DOS/Win3.x as the emulated
BIOS may not be handing all of the BIOS calls like a hardware BIOS would.

Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:

> Hello DOS users,
>
> I'm running MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 FWG natively (from SD Card) in
> this relatively "modern" Positivo Mobo/Intel Classmate laptop computer
> (Intel Atom 64-bit/2GB RAM). I was not able to get Windows running in
> 386 Enhanced mode; no matter what, the computer always reboots without
> notice upon WIN.COM invocation. That was the case for Standard Mode as
> well, which I was eventually able to get working by enabling it (copying
> WIN.CNF from 3.1's installation) and replacing a VGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} by
> CGALOGO.{LGO,RLE} once I figured out the problem was the video driver
> shipped with Windows. On that note, the driver I'm using is the SVGA
> one patched to work with VESA-compliant cards (the maximum resolution of
> this notebook is 1024x600, which is not supported by the driver, and
> 1024x768 which is supported does not work with it, but 800x600 works
> just fine.)
>
> Now I'm able to surf WEB, discuss in newsgroups, talk in IRC, all from
> standard mode. I'm posting this from Netscape 3.04Gold running on that
> system. However I'd have more freedom of choice and convenience or
> features running DOS boxes, for example, if I was able to get 386
> Enhanced mode going. Any Ideas on things to try to accomplish that are
> very welcome!
>
> Another somewhat serious problem I've been bothered with is the fact
> that neither EMM386.EXE nor JEMMEX.EXE can find usable Upper Memory to
> allocate for UMBs, even with aggressive scan settings. In fact, neither
> can I. I've spent hours upon hours systematically testing I= and X=
> directives just to get some isolated 4kb free pages at the end of the
> family of upper memory segments (..., BEFF-BFFF, CEFF-CFFF, ...), but
> even then the system becomes unstable. MSD memory usage reports didn't
> seem reliable. By the looks of it the whole UMA is used by the BIOS or
> hardware devices, or something. Help with this would be greatly
> appreciated as well!
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> http://oitofelix.sdf.org/