That's what I've been thinking all along...a PCem bug. The I=B000-B7FF range has been removed.Battler wrote:- ppgrainbow: Just remove I=B000-B7FFF, it will cause your memory driver to not assign those drivers to UMB's.
However, I would appreciate it if the problem was fixed, because as I said, this behavior does not occur on real hardware, it only occurs inside PCem, so it's definitely a PCem bug.
What version of DOS is this? Which BIOS? Is the recompiler enabled? Can you provide CONFIG.SYS/AUTOEXEC.BAT?Battler wrote:- ppgrainbow: It's I=B000-B7FF that's at fault. For some reason, using that option in PCem makes DOS rather unstable and prone to all sorts of weird behaviors (CD-ROM drivers freezing, random EMM386 errors, etc.), that happen neither in, say, Virtual PC 2007, nor did they happen on real hardware - I always used that option on my Pentium 100 MHz to gain extra upper memory and never had any problems.
I'll provide to you two versions, the one of them off of the AMI 486 and the AMI WinBIOS 486 emulated machines.TomWalker wrote:What version of DOS is this? Which BIOS? Is the recompiler enabled? Can you provide CONFIG.SYS/AUTOEXEC.BAT?Battler wrote:- ppgrainbow: It's I=B000-B7FF that's at fault. For some reason, using that option in PCem makes DOS rather unstable and prone to all sorts of weird behaviors (CD-ROM drivers freezing, random EMM386 errors, etc.), that happen neither in, say, Virtual PC 2007, nor did they happen on real hardware - I always used that option on my Pentium 100 MHz to gain extra upper memory and never had any problems.
Yes....ppgrainbow wrote: I should start a new thread regarding DOS memory optimisation.
Good idea.neozeed wrote:Yes....ppgrainbow wrote: I should start a new thread regarding DOS memory optimisation.
And this is why I want an EMS board so I don't have to deal with emm386... or any of it's friends. I've never liked that POS, and all the magical issues it brings into the world.
A separate thread on memory optimisation tricks has been created.
My hard disk is:AMI 486 clone
Tseng ET 4000AX
Intel
Pentium OverDrive/83
A lot
Fast VLB/PCI
SoundBlaster AWE32
63
5.25" 1.2M
5.25" 1.2M
Yep, another major hassle I've had with OS/2 is network drivers..... I've had weird issues with VMware and QEMU and it's NE2000 emulation all depending on the OS/2 version.amadama wrote:Well I couldn't leave well enough at home and tried neozeed's advice on switching emulated motherboard and CPU.
Now with SIS 496/497 and Pentium o/d 83 the OS/2 Warp 3 install continues.
Looks like the built in NE2000 OS/2 driver isn't working right so may need an update. Almost there...
Uh oh! It looks like that the Paradise Bahamas 64 and S3 Trio compatible drivers aren't even working correctly with OS/2 Warp 3.amadama wrote:That's pretty good, but what happened at the end there? I was able to make it to completion of install and it worked ok (minus the network of course). Unfortunately I changed the driver to use the S3 864 (emulating a Paradise Bahamas 64 (S3 864) card in PCEM). After rebooting I got the stretchy, distorted screen:
Luckily OS/2 version 3 allows you do Alt-F1 during boot and revert to VGA mode.
Stick with the ET4000 .... lol OS/2 was always so catastrophically picky about cards.amadama wrote:That's pretty good, but what happened at the end there? I was able to make it to completion of install and it worked ok (minus the network of course). Unfortunately I changed the driver to use the S3 864 (emulating a Paradise Bahamas 64 (S3 864) card in PCEM). After rebooting I got the stretchy, distorted screen:
Luckily OS/2 version 3 allows you do Alt-F1 during boot and revert to VGA mode.
And the fix is:SYS1919: The file D:\CID\LCU\SRVREXX.EXE specified in the RUN statement on line
81 of CONFIG.SYS does not contain a valid program.
Line 81 is ignored.
Press Enter to continue..
Good grief. I'm re-installing again... Formatting as HPFS, because, why not?In the System Configuration panel, make sure the “Non-listed IDE CD-ROM” entry is selected. That ensures the IDE CD-ROM driver will be installed and the installation will not fail.
Super awsome!amadama wrote:Awesome! Took your advice on the video card and now all is well. Network too using the drivers you pointed out.
Hallelujah!neozeed wrote:Stick with the ET4000 .... lol OS/2 was always so catastrophically picky about cards.amadama wrote:That's pretty good, but what happened at the end there? I was able to make it to completion of install and it worked ok (minus the network of course). Unfortunately I changed the driver to use the S3 864 (emulating a Paradise Bahamas 64 (S3 864) card in PCEM). After rebooting I got the stretchy, distorted screen:
Luckily OS/2 version 3 allows you do Alt-F1 during boot and revert to VGA mode.
I may have found a NIC to work the ne2000wc driver. Also apparently It is screwing up the CD-ROM part during the GUI install according to OS/2 museum.
I get this error when I try to do networking:
And the fix is:SYS1919: The file D:\CID\LCU\SRVREXX.EXE specified in the RUN statement on line
81 of CONFIG.SYS does not contain a valid program.
Line 81 is ignored.
Press Enter to continue..
Good grief. I'm re-installing again... Formatting as HPFS, because, why not?In the System Configuration panel, make sure the “Non-listed IDE CD-ROM” entry is selected. That ensures the IDE CD-ROM driver will be installed and the installation will not fail.
And there we go, it works!
Set it to NON-listed IDE CD-ROM
Yes, tutorials would go a long way no doubt...ppgrainbow wrote:Since OS/2 Warp 3 (including Red Spine/Blue Spine and Warp Connect versions) is not easy to install, I think that it would be wise for the PCem forums to include a new category...the Tutorial section on how to install OS/2 Warp 3 (or Warp 4) inside PCem!
By the way...has anyone tested Win-0S/2 support under Warp 3 yet? The last time I tried to install OS/2 Warp was that the emulated machine hanging when trying to click on the Clock icon.
True. It's not a FPU issue, but more like a bug in the PCem emulation. Win-OS/2 Clock does work fine in Qemu, Virtual PC, VMware, VirtualBox and on real PCs too.neozeed wrote:Yes, tutorials would go a long way no doubt...ppgrainbow wrote:Since OS/2 Warp 3 (including Red Spine/Blue Spine and Warp Connect versions) is not easy to install, I think that it would be wise for the PCem forums to include a new category...the Tutorial section on how to install OS/2 Warp 3 (or Warp 4) inside PCem!
By the way...has anyone tested Win-0S/2 support under Warp 3 yet? The last time I tried to install OS/2 Warp was that the emulated machine hanging when trying to click on the Clock icon.
Also WinOS/2 works in seamless and fullscreen, *BUT* clock does lock up!
I've tried a 486SX2/50 and the Pentium OverDrive 83! Now that is weird! It's not a FPU thing then.
Don't install quemm. or emm386 or anything else like it.ppgrainbow wrote:Okay, I attempted to install Internet Explorer 5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.11. After IE5 tries to copy the files, Windows crashes and QEMM throws an Exception 6 error: Something is amiss here! It either has got to do with the QEMM386.SYS settings in the CONFIG.SYS or due to the erratic behaviour of anything being loaded to UMB address segment B000-B7FF. I personally believe that with QEMM386 or EMM#86 installed, this shouldn't happen on a real PC.
After rebooting the emulated PC, the Internet Explorer 5 browser doesn't display anything correctly. Windows NT 3.51 is on the same boat as Windows 3.1. I still have the backup copy of the hard disk image the installation of IE5 screws up Windows 3.1!
Have you tested the installation of IE5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.1 (not Windows for Workgroups 3.11) with either QEMM386 or EMM386 as the expanded memory manager? What can be corrected to try to fix the problem?
Thanks for telling me. I should have posted this in the Development section (Networking Discussion) Not here. I'm sorry that I didn't look correctly.neozeed wrote:Don't install quemm. or emm386 or anything else like it.ppgrainbow wrote:Okay, I attempted to install Internet Explorer 5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.11. After IE5 tries to copy the files, Windows crashes and QEMM throws an Exception 6 error: Something is amiss here! It either has got to do with the QEMM386.SYS settings in the CONFIG.SYS or due to the erratic behaviour of anything being loaded to UMB address segment B000-B7FF. I personally believe that with QEMM386 or EMM#86 installed, this shouldn't happen on a real PC.
After rebooting the emulated PC, the Internet Explorer 5 browser doesn't display anything correctly. Windows NT 3.51 is on the same boat as Windows 3.1. I still have the backup copy of the hard disk image the installation of IE5 screws up Windows 3.1!
Have you tested the installation of IE5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.1 (not Windows for Workgroups 3.11) with either QEMM386 or EMM386 as the expanded memory manager? What can be corrected to try to fix the problem?
try to keep the configuration as PLAIN and SIMPLE as possible.
Keeping the CONFIG.SYS/AUTOEXEC.BAT configuration as plain as simple as possible was no help. This issue appears to only occur when I run the Norton Desktop as the shell instead of Program Manager. In the SYSTEM.INI file, I changed the line in the [Boot] section to read shell=progman.exe and it worked.Application Error
IE5SETUP caused a Page Fault in module DDEML.DLL at 0001:17BE.
Yikes! It looks like that the layout got trashed!neozeed wrote:
Got my gopher working again... and it doesn't preserve the layout so well. yuck.
Works here, EMM386 loaded, Windows 3.10 (according to winver). (on ami486 Pentium Overdrive 83, 64mb)ppgrainbow wrote:Okay, I attempted to install Internet Explorer 5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.11. After IE5 tries to copy the files, Windows crashes and QEMM throws an Exception 6 error: Something is amiss here! It either has got to do with the QEMM386.SYS settings in the CONFIG.SYS or due to the erratic behaviour of anything being loaded to UMB address segment B000-B7FF. I personally believe that with QEMM386 or EMM#86 installed, this shouldn't happen on a real PC.
After rebooting the emulated PC, the Internet Explorer 5 browser doesn't display anything correctly. Windows NT 3.51 is on the same boat as Windows 3.1. I still have the backup copy of the hard disk image the installation of IE5 screws up Windows 3.1!
Have you tested the installation of IE5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.1 (not Windows for Workgroups 3.11) with either QEMM386 or EMM386 as the expanded memory manager? What can be corrected to try to fix the problem?
Awesome!te_lanus wrote:Works here, EMM386 loaded, Windows 3.10 (according to winver). (on ami486 Pentium Overdrive 83, 64mb)ppgrainbow wrote:Okay, I attempted to install Internet Explorer 5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.11. After IE5 tries to copy the files, Windows crashes and QEMM throws an Exception 6 error: Something is amiss here! It either has got to do with the QEMM386.SYS settings in the CONFIG.SYS or due to the erratic behaviour of anything being loaded to UMB address segment B000-B7FF. I personally believe that with QEMM386 or EMM#86 installed, this shouldn't happen on a real PC.
After rebooting the emulated PC, the Internet Explorer 5 browser doesn't display anything correctly. Windows NT 3.51 is on the same boat as Windows 3.1. I still have the backup copy of the hard disk image the installation of IE5 screws up Windows 3.1!
Have you tested the installation of IE5 (16-bit) on Windows 3.1 (not Windows for Workgroups 3.11) with either QEMM386 or EMM386 as the expanded memory manager? What can be corrected to try to fix the problem?
Bootscreen of Windows: IE5 Running:
More like, the bug in PCem needs to be fixed. Again, I did I=B000-B7FF on real hardware all the time and never had these problems. Only in PCem does that cause problems.neozeed wrote:Don't install quemm. or emm386 or anything else like it.
try to keep the configuration as PLAIN and SIMPLE as possible.
PCem's memory map isn't like your 'real pc' and this has nothing to do with WARP.Battler wrote:More like, the bug in PCem needs to be fixed. Again, I did I=B000-B7FF on real hardware all the time and never had these problems. Only in PCem does that cause problems.neozeed wrote:Don't install quemm. or emm386 or anything else like it.
try to keep the configuration as PLAIN and SIMPLE as possible.
That is so bizzare... i wonder if i have symbols for clock.exeamadama wrote:Running the Windows Clock locks up the Windows subsystem in OS/2 2.1 also.
