Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!vsi1!hsv3!jls
From: jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Video Cards
Message-ID: <4069@hsv3.UUCP>
Date: 21 Aug 90 15:54:54 GMT
References: <1742@abvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jls@headland.UUCP (James Seidman)
Organization: Video Seven / Headland Technology
Lines: 44

In article <1742@abvax.UUCP> jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) writes:
>I would like to find a video card that works with windows in the
>1024x768 and 800x600 modes. Does any card out there have drivers
>yet to do this ? If so, what kind of performance do you get ? I'm
>running a 25mz '386 with no cache, 4MB of memory, and using
>Pagemaker, Finale, Word for Windows, and several others. Finale is
>a music notation system, sort of like a publishing package for
>music.Finale's screen update time is very slow even in 640x480 mode.
>(I don't know if this is due to it's own inefficiencies or to Windows 
>draw routines)

At the risk of sounding like I'm making a blatant plug, I'll go ahead and
make a blatant plug.  There are lots of companies with cards that'll do
those resolutions, but I recommend the Video-7 VRAM or 1024i.  Video-7
is consistently rated the best in the industry for driver support, and
that includes windows 3.0.  (To give you an idea, our code is the only
non-Microsoft driver source included in their Windows Driver Development
Kit.)

There are a number of things to take into consideration when getting a
card.  First is, do you want that 1024x768 to be interlaced or non-
interlaced?  If your monitor can handle non-interlaced, then you definitely
want that, but many monitors can't.  (The VRAM does it non-interlaced,
the 1024i uses interlacing.)  You also need to be on the lookout for
system incompatibilities.  For example, Chips&Technologies chipset-based
motherboards have problems with a lot of graphics cards because of
design flaws.

Realize that performance can often be *worse* for 1024x768 modes than
640x480.  Because of the necessary bank-switching and the like, it can
introduce all sorts of extra overhead.  The difference is usually
negligible, but don't expect gains just from having a different resolution.
(However, going from the standard Windows VGA driver to a proprietary
driver may help a lot because it'll be optimized to the card.)

Lastly, see if you can get a demo of how a 1024x768 display will look on
your monitor.  On some smaller monitors the letters become so small that
you get terrible eyestrain.  And if it's an interlaced display, you can
get some pretty bad flicker (which'll vary from monitor to monitor).
Perhaps you'll decide you like 800x600 better.
-- 
Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer.
UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls
ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@apple.com