Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!boulder!seri!wind55!marshall
From: marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: MS-WINDOWS IN 1024x768 RESOLUTION
Message-ID: <1990Mar20.201032.3092@seri.gov>
Date: 20 Mar 90 20:10:32 GMT
References: <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> <7269@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@seri.gov (news [NO CHARGE])
Organization: Solar Energy Research Institute
Lines: 48

mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) writes:

>In article <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) writes:
>>
>>  Shmuel Tomer is upset that his Windows performance is unacceptable
>>  in 1024x768 mode.

>I'm using a Video Seven VGA 1024i with Windows in 1024x768 resolution and
>I don't experience these problems.  The redraw of moved windows, in fact,
>is nearly imperceptable.  (My machine is comparable: Dell System 310, only
>2 MB RAM.)  I am using Windows/286 rather than /386 because of some 
>incompatibilities, but it would seem to me that this would make it slower if
>it has any effect at all.  I have Windows/386 as well, so I'll try the same
>operations with it when I get a chance.

As far as Win286 being slower than Win386:

  I don't know if the problem is related, but anyway...

  I recently acquired PC Paintbrush Plus for Windows.  When running in 
  standard VGA mode, it takes about a half minute to clear the screen with 
  Win386.  The PC Paintbrush IV Plus (non-windows) takes less than a second.  
  I called Z-Soft to complain.  They said they were getting good performance.
  Then - "Oh, your using Win386 - That's MUCH slower.  Our product isn't
  really compatible with Win386.  You should use Win286."  I told them
  I wasn't about to fall back to Win286.  I told them I was upset because
  their literature said it was compatible with Windows.  Now, when I see 
  "Windows" without a 286/386 qualifier, I assume it works for both.  I 
  asked them when they would properly support Win386.  They said, "When Win386 
  3.0 comes out.  It will run fine then."

  COME ON Microsoft.  I need 3.0 NOW!  Version 2.11 isn't worth the effort.

A coworker of mine has a PS/2 Model 80 (20 MHz) with 8514.  It gets good
performance in 1024x768 mode.  Of course, I believe the 8514/A has a graphics
coprocessor on board.  I also noticed that the 8514 monitor doesn't flicker
at high resolutions.  Is that because of a high persistence phosphor?  I'm
fairly certain it's interlaced.  Now that I think about it, he was using the
run-time version with WinWord.  I believe that's Win286.  I haven't seen
him use Win386.  Hmmmm.  I'm beginning to detect a pattern.


Marshall,    abandoning Windows until 3.0
--
Marshall L. Buhl, Jr.                EMAIL: marshall@wind55.seri.gov
Senior Computer Engineer             VOICE: (303)231-1014
Wind Research Branch                 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO  80401-3393
Solar Energy Research Institute      Solar - safe energy for a healthy future