Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!ryn.esg.dec.com!consl4.esg.dec.com!yon
From: yon%consl4.esg.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (David Yon)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: ATI 256-color drivers
Message-ID: <3357@ryn.esg.dec.com>
Date: 31 Oct 90 20:00:57 GMT
References: <Ab=bNNC00WAJJ2zHRu@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@ryn.esg.dec.com
Reply-To: yon%consl4.esg.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (David Yon)
Followup-To: comp.windows.ms
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 19

In article <Ab=bNNC00WAJJ2zHRu@andrew.cmu.edu>, jh5y+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Jordan Powell Hargrave) writes:
> The problem with the slowness of the 256 color drivers is not a fault
> of the drivers themselves, it is a hardware problem (Can you say
> I/O bottleneck? :-> ) Don't forget, a 1kx768 screen is 768k of memory
> and the CPU has to handle all the screen updates by itself.  The speed
> of video updates on a 386 or 486 is also not very great, as most
> AT buses are only 16 bits. (:-(  A call for EISA? :-> )
> 

	Like most people who've eagerly tried out the new ATI 256-color
drivers, I've also come to the conclusion that the performances costs 
are steep.  What I'm wondering is, is this limited to ATI?  Hey, all
you people with VGA cards with different chipsets (who've had 256-color
drivers for months now :-( ), is there a huge speed difference between
16-color and 256-color drivers on *your* hardware?

David Yon
CASE Consultant