Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!sbi!zeus! From: nee@cf_su14.Salomon.Com (Robert Nee) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: Dual monitors Message-ID: <176@cf_su20.cf_su10.Sbi.COM> Date: 14 Feb 91 14:37:25 GMT References: <2819@cod.NOSC.MIL> <26810@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <91037.150254BUAD1621@Ryerson.CA> <26753@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <166@cf_su20.cf_su10.Sbi.COM> <169@cf_su20.cf_su10.Sbi.COM> Sender: news@cf_su10.Sbi.COM Reply-To: nee@cf_su14.Salomon.Com (Robert Nee) Organization: Salomon Brothers, NY Lines: 14 ath: cf_su10!cf_su14!nee > And anyway, all memory accesses to video memory is sync'd to H or V retrace > time, so 16 vr. 8 bits really don't amount to much. Hmmm. On my system it amounts to about a 32% speed degredation. This is also very noticable in windows. I am not just spouting useless figures. Do you have a monochome adapter? Have you run you own benchmarks? Do you want a copy of the ones I have been using? What are the results in your own tests? What video board are you using? Mr. Marsh's theories are sound, but something falls short in pactice. Robert F. Nee