BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 2d, 7h, 45m | CPU: 44% | MEM: 7438MB of 24567MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 11:27 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:09 pm

Posts
90

Favourite OS
All of Windows, and Mac OS X DP3
I'm trying to figure this out, How do I set the pentium II patch for Build 475? The disks are in floppy, so I do I edit the disk?

_________________
Image
Image

Alcohol 120% is better than Alcohol 52% because 120% is bigger than 52%


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:36 am 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:04 pm

Posts
2797

Favourite OS
Anything checked :P
Use 86Box.

_________________
C H E C K E D . B U I L D S . A R E . A W E S O M E N E S S

Glitch City Laboratories ForumsSoftHistory Forumsirc.rol.im #softhistory,#galaxy

If you like my posts, donate me Dogecoin: DLnZV8DS3CaZmLKAVxL2aMijY2vUZeyjBi


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 7:29 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am

Posts
1059

Location
Slovenia

Favourite OS
5111
The Distractor wrote:
Use 86Box.


This.

Or if you must bother with something else, it's the same procedure as if it was a CD copy. After the text mode setup completes, don't allow the setup to continue in graphics mode, you must boot with a DOS/whatever boot disk instead and do the necessary changes before continuing with the setup.

_________________
Virtual PC Toolkit - disable BIOS date sync in Microsoft Virtual PC
CHIFIX - Fix Windows Chicago build 99/116/122 Protection Error on Virtual PC
My MEGA storage for betas and abandonware


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 10:24 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:23 pm

Posts
124

Favourite OS
NT 3.51
VirtualBox is another option: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/installing- ... irtualbox/


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:05 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:19 pm

Posts
983

Favourite OS
NT 3.1-6.3
No no no. Virtualbox is just terrible for even NT 3.1 RTM, especially version 5.0 and later. Just use 86box or VPC 2007(if your OS supports it). And no, you don't edit the files on the floppy disk, rather after the text stage, boot with a dos boot disk then run edit.com to edit them from the hdd.

_________________
Join Betawiki IRC for discussion about betas and abandonware.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 11:52 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:23 pm

Posts
124

Favourite OS
NT 3.51
ovctvct wrote:
Virtualbox is just terrible for even NT 3.1 RTM


Not in my experience. All NT and OS/2 based OSs run far better on VirtualBox than anything else I've tried.

ovctvct wrote:
86box or VPC 2007(if your OS supports it)


86Box is too slow for NT (on a typical PC at least). VPC 2007 is will not run reliably on any OS that should be used as a "daily driver" in 2017.

ovctvct wrote:
And no, you don't edit the files on the floppy disk, rather after the text stage, boot with a dos boot disk then run edit.com to edit them from the hdd.


No, you just change the CPUID reported by VirtualBox, as the linked article explained. Almost as though you didn't read it...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 12:39 pm 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1748

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- mallard: NT 4.0 and 3.x runs perfectly in 86Box on my PC, and I'm on a Pentium Dual-Core. Consider changing the renderer to Direct3D, I think it used to default to DirectDraw which is slow as heck on modern graphics cards.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
PCem help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 12:39 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:11 am

Posts
3313

Location
Italy

Favourite OS
Windows, OS/2, DOS
Well, of course it is slow, it'a an EMULATOR not a virtualizer.

_________________
http://forum.softhistory.org


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 2:09 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:23 pm

Posts
124

Favourite OS
NT 3.51
TheCollector1988 wrote:
Well, of course it is slow, it'a an EMULATOR not a virtualizer.


I understand why it's slow. That's also that reason that it's so good at running ancient DOS-based OSs (which includes Windows 9x) which don't work reliably on modern hardware or in virtualization.

But if a virtualizer can run the "target" OS reasonably reliably and much faster, why use an emulator?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 2:24 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:11 am

Posts
3313

Location
Italy

Favourite OS
Windows, OS/2, DOS
To make it work authentic hardware of its period rather on faked hardware (Though VMware emulates a real bios, a Phoenix one).

_________________
http://forum.softhistory.org


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 2:33 pm 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1748

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- mallard: Virtualizers may or may not run old NT versions reliably. We don't know how well old NT versions run under virtualization on, say, a Skylake i5/i7 or a Ryzen.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
PCem help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 2:51 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:23 pm

Posts
124

Favourite OS
NT 3.51
Well, Ryzen's VME bug means it's completely broken when it comes to running older software and can't even boot XP or 2003 in virtualization without tweaks. I expect the latest Intel chips have similar "features". So sure, if you've got one of the buggy cost-cut new UEFI-only CPUs from Intel or AMD, emulation might be your only option.

For those of us with non-broken hardware, virtualization allows one to see how "good" an older OS can be, rather than how "bad" it was at the time. NT 3.1 (and later versions of NT to an extent) was well known to run poorly even on high-end hardware of the early 1990s, so the "realistic" experience of running it on, say an actual-speed emulation of a 486 with 16MB RAM is not going to be much fun.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 3:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:13 am

Posts
1748

Location
Slovenia, Central Europe.

Favourite OS
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222B
- mallard: Fun is subjective. For me, running the OS'es in the environments they were designed to run it is much more exciting than running then in environments that were made years after.

Also, 86Box emulates up to and including a Pentium II Overdrive 333 MHz with 1 GB RAM. I think that's more than enough to make old NT versions fly. I personally run them on the Epox P55-VA board, on a Pentium 75 with 64 MB RAM, and they seem quite fast to me.

_________________
Join #softhistory @ RoL IRC, a nice community for true enthusiasts!
Anime channel: #doki-doki @ RoL IRC, Mibbit, KiwiIRC.
PCem help channel is #softhistory now!

Check out our SoftHistory Forum for quality discussion about older software.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject: Re: Trouble installing Windows NT 3.1 Build 475        Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 1:22 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2404
mallard wrote:
TheCollector1988 wrote:
Well, of course it is slow, it'a an EMULATOR not a virtualizer.


I understand why it's slow. That's also that reason that it's so good at running ancient DOS-based OSs (which includes Windows 9x) which don't work reliably on modern hardware or in virtualization.

But if a virtualizer can run the "target" OS reasonably reliably and much faster, why use an emulator?


It's slow(er in the OS when address translation is enabled) because of the TLB not being emulated 'properly', leading to a fetch from the page tables each time an instruction that references memory is accessed. See src/mem.c, mmutranslate_read. (This is according to commit 84480b from https://github.com/OBattler/86Box.git). You end up incurring a giant performance penalty when a fetch has to occur from memory for each instruction that references a translated address.

It might be best to have a hash table that corresponds to an input address and add to buckets inside for the corresponding address translation (including removing translations from the htab when they need to be evicted), or you can do what MAME does (see http://wiki.mamedev.org/index.php/Virtual_TLB) and have a giant allocated memory chunk where the software managed TLB entries can lie. Either approach should work.

This might improve performance.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2017

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS