Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpda!hpwala!hpavla!pfeifer
From: pfeifer@hpavla.AVO.HP.COM (Mark Pfeifer)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: RE: ATI 256-color Drivers, Winfract, and memory
Message-ID: <16980016@hpavla.AVO.HP.COM>
Date: 2 Nov 90 13:19:02 GMT
References: <572@nih-csl.nih.gov>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Avondale Division
Lines: 21

>/ hpavla:comp.windows.ms / yon%consl4.esg.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (David Yon) /  3:00 pm  Oct 31, 1990 /
>	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
>----------

I've used both the Paradise and Video-7 640x480x256 drivers on an HP RS/25C
(25MHz 386).  The Paradise was extremely slow, making ToolBook's Daybook
nearly unusable.  Switching to the 800x600x16 driver on the same machine made
the program _much_ more usable.

The Video-7 (using a 1024i card) was faster than the Paradise in 256 color mode,
but was still noticably slower than 800x600.

							Mark