Windows/386 VGA Resolution

[SupernovaNick]

I am trying to install Windows/386 2.1 and 2.11 in Virtual PC 2007. During the setup, I selected VGA as the display adapter. Everything goes successfully, but I notice that the resolution is 640x450. Is there any way to use 640x480 resolution in Windows/386 2.1 and 2.11? The VGA resolution is 640x480 in all other Windows/286 and Windows/386 2.x versions so why would the 386 versions of 2.1 and 2.11 not have the higher VGA resolution?

Thanks.

[Overdoze]

I think there's a reason for that IIRC, look in the README where it should be explained.

EDIT: Here it is from 2.03/386:

Using a VGA or Compatible Display Adapter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a VGA or compatible display adapter installed in your
computer, the Windows/386 Setup program gives you a choice between two
modes in which to run Windows: 640x480 and 640x450. We recommend that
you choose the 640x450 mode. This mode, unlike the 640x480 mode, allows
you to run most EGA graphics applications in windows or as background
applications.

See the section "Running Graphics Applications on a VGA" in this
document for related information.

So basically, it's just a compatibility workaround for EGA applications.

[sArAmTaCoJeSUs]

So basically, it's just a compatibility workaround for EGA applications.

But why does it only happen in VPC 2007? VGA works fine in 640x480 in every other hypervisor/emulator I have used.

[Overdoze]

According to the README, you can choose the mode during setup. So you must've chosen the 450 mode then?

[sArAmTaCoJeSUs]

According to the README, you can choose the mode during setup. So you must've chosen the 450 mode then?

There is that option in Windows 2.03, but SupernovaNick is trying to use 2.11, which only has one option for the VGA adapter:

[Overdoze]

Ah yes, I read the original post poorly. If you compare SETUP.INF from 2.03 and 2.10 (386), you'll see this:

(1:VGA450.drv, "VGA Video Graphics Array 640x450 (see readme.txt)",
"100,96,96")
(1:IBMPS250.DRV, "VGA Video Graphics Array 640x480",
"100,96,96")

(2:VGA450.DRV,"VGA","100,96,96","101")

As you can see, the IBMPS250.DRV driver which was previously used for 640x480 VGA is now missing. Perhaps they merged its functionality into VGA450.DRV. In any case, Virtual PC emulates an S3 Trio card, and not particularly well to be honest, so it's possible the driver can't set 480 mode.

A possible workaround could be to select "Other" and then insert a disk with IBMPS250.DRV on it, to see if that would work in 480 mode.

[AlphaBeta]

So basically, it's just a compatibility workaround for EGA applications.

But why does it only happen in VPC 2007? VGA works fine in 640x480 in every other hypervisor/emulator I have used.

VGA works fine in 640x480 with Windows/286. Windows/386 doesn't ship with the 640x480 driver.

[sArAmTaCoJeSUs]

VGA works fine in 640x480 with Windows/286. Windows/386 doesn't ship with the 640x480 driver.

Yes I was wrong, I thought the OP said 640x350, not 450, I couldn't tell the difference between 480 and 450 so I thought it was the right resolution.

[YourAverageJoe]

I am trying to install Windows/386 2.1 and 2.11 in Virtual PC 2007. During the setup, I selected VGA as the display adapter. Everything goes successfully, but I notice that the resolution is 640x450. Is there any way to use 640x480 resolution in Windows/386 2.1 and 2.11? The VGA resolution is 640x480 in all other Windows/286 and Windows/386 2.x versions so why would the 386 versions of 2.1 and 2.11 not have the higher VGA resolution?

Thanks.

https://ia802608.us.archive.org/zipview ... rivers.zip Try using this driver.

[Battler]

Why would a Windows 3.1x driver work with Windows 2.1x?

[YourAverageJoe]

Why would a Windows 3.1x driver work with Windows 2.1x?

Because I'm a retard and took a quick enough glance to think that they were asking for a driver that worked with "3.11"
Yeah, big difference

[chasemorgan2010]

Why would a Windows 3.1x driver work with Windows 2.1x?

Because I'm a retard and took a quick enough glance to think that they were asking for a driver that worked with "3.11"
Yeah, big difference

Please do not use the word “retard” ever!
I have ADHD and my brother has autism. So I take offense to that. It’s surprising you have not got banned LOL.

[vbdasc]

Please do not use the word “retard” ever!
I have ADHD and my brother has autism. So I take offense to that. It’s surprising you have not got banned LOL.

Dude, as one with ASD himself, I find YOUR post offensive. Don't conflate ADHD and Autism with "mental retardation" (whatever it means) because it is a different thing.

Sorry to everyone for the off-topic and for helping this person resurrect old moldy threads.

[chasemorgan2010]

Please do not use the word “retard” ever!
I have ADHD and my brother has autism. So I take offense to that. It’s surprising you have not got banned LOL.

Dude, as one with ASD himself, I find YOUR post offensive. Don't conflate ADHD and Autism with "mental retardation" (whatever it means) because it is a different thing.

Sorry to everyone for the off-topic and for helping this person resurrect old moldy threads.

“Mental retardation” was replaced by “intellectual disability”

[x010]

While the use of the "r-word" was indeed unnecessary, @chasemorgan2010's response was inappropriate and childish. As usual, if one has a problem with a comment, report it, not try to backseat moderate. The user has also got a ban for this.

Locked