• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Promise EIDEPro in older 386-40

mbbrutman

Associate Cat Herder
Staff member
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,269
I'm using a Promise EIDEPro card in a 386-40. It's a 16 bit ISA card, and it should work fine. There seems to be some weirdness though:

The 'game' adapter doesn't show up. I've run several programs to try to detect it, but it's just not there. I've checked the jump settings multiple times. I don't even have a joystick, but I wonder why it's not showing up. (I've also removed everything from the machine except the video card, so I know it's not a port conflict.)

The parallel port isn't being detected as EPP or ECP by a parallel-to-SCSI adapter that I'm using. It works, but nowhere near as fast as should be.

The IDE piece (which is what I really need it for) is working fine. The com ports are showing up, but who knows if they're working ... (I haven't tested them yet.)


Does anybody else have experience with this card in an older machine? Is there more than one flavor of game adapter for the older machines? (I thought there was just one, but I've never had a joystick on a PC before so how would I know? Jr's have them built in ...)
 

Unknown_K

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
8,580
Location
Ohio/USA
What OS are you using?

I checked the readme for the eidepro drivers and it does state the card does ECP/EPP but at only 2mb/sec max.

When your using bidirectional mode you need to have an IRQ and DMA assigned make sure there is no conflict.
 

mbbrutman

Associate Cat Herder
Staff member
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,269
DOS 5. Is there any other OS ? :)

The parallel port is probably configured right, and it's just a driver issue. I still need to experiment with it. The game port not showing up is more of a concern - that's pretty hard to get a conflict on.

This 386-40 probably could run Windows 3.1, maybe Win 95, OS/2, and very old versions of Linux. DOS 5 is the OS of choice at the moment.
 

CP/M User

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
2,984
Location
Back of Burke (Guday!), Australia
"mbbrutman" wrote:

> DOS 5. Is there any other OS ? :)

CP/M-86 v1.1
DOS 3.3 is good too! ;-)

> This 386-40 probably could run Windows 3.1, maybe Win
> 95, OS/2, and very old versions of Linux. DOS 5 is the
> OS of choice at the moment.

A 386DX-33 can run Win95, as long it has a maths
coprocessor installed, so a 386DX-40 should hammer it in!

All of those OSes will work, even the ones I mentioned. You
really don't know what you're missing if you haven't tried
CP/M-86 v1.1 (after the installation), it makes DOS of the
time look puney! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.
 

Unknown_K

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
8,580
Location
Ohio/USA
CP/M User said:
"mbbrutman" wrote:

> DOS 5. Is there any other OS ? :)

CP/M-86 v1.1
DOS 3.3 is good too! ;-)

> This 386-40 probably could run Windows 3.1, maybe Win
> 95, OS/2, and very old versions of Linux. DOS 5 is the
> OS of choice at the moment.

A 386DX-33 can run Win95, as long it has a maths
coprocessor installed, so a 386DX-40 should hammer it in!

All of those OSes will work, even the ones I mentioned. You
really don't know what you're missing if you haven't tried
CP/M-86 v1.1 (after the installation), it makes DOS of the
time look puney! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

I have a 386dx/40 with math coprossesor and 32mb ram, no way in hell would I run Win95 on it. Windows 3.11 is the only way to go (but NT 3.51 might work out ok, just never tried it).

I can't remember if I ever tried CP/M on a x86
 

CP/M User

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
2,984
Location
Back of Burke (Guday!), Australia
"Unknown_K" wrote:

>>> DOS 5. Is there any other OS ? :)

>> CP/M-86 v1.1
>> DOS 3.3 is good too! ;-)

>>> This 386-40 probably could run Windows 3.1, maybe Win
>>> 95, OS/2, and very old versions of Linux. DOS 5 is the
>>> OS of choice at the moment.

>> A 386DX-33 can run Win95, as long it has a maths
>> coprocessor installed, so a 386DX-40 should hammer it in!

>> All of those OSes will work, even the ones I mentioned. You
>> really don't know what you're missing if you haven't tried
>> CP/M-86 v1.1 (after the installation), it makes DOS of the
>> time look puney! ;-)

> I have a 386dx/40 with math coprossesor and 32mb ram,
> no way in hell would I run Win95 on it. Windows 3.11 is the
> only way to go (but NT 3.51 might work out ok, just never
> tried it).

Well, I must admit it's been a while since I saw the information
about getting Win95 on a 386. But I've read it from one 386
user who stated that having a Maths Co-processor does help.
Some people have also said that they got Win95 & are looking
at the possibilities of getting Win98 on their system. Some 386
systems perhaps perform better than others (not that I'm
saying your's isn't up to the standard). People say it also helps
to build your 386 system up from a Win2.x platform. I don't
know how they go about this, but that's what some people
claim. So what I should of said that while people have
managed to get Win95 on their 386, it's not as easy as simply
installing the software.

> I can't remember if I ever tried CP/M on a x86

Never tried CP/M-86 v1.1 for the IBM PC/XT?

It's been made to work with newer systems/hardware, v1.1
in particular is just like CP/M v2.2 on the Z80/8080 machines
except for the Status Bar on the bottom, all the characteristics
are there. CTRL-C for logging in disks too! ;-)

I have it on a seperate partion & going between DOS 5! &
CP/M-86 is fairly easy! :)

Cheers,
CP/M User.
 
Top