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/