Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!csn!kessner!david From: david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: accessing video RAM: how advisable is it? Message-ID: <1991Mar16.222835.2045@kessner.denver.co.us> Date: 16 Mar 91 22:28:35 GMT References: <9103162053.AA02053@samadams.Princeton.EDU> Reply-To: david@kessner.denver.co.us (David D. Kessner) Organization: Kessner, Inc Lines: 32 In article <9103162053.AA02053@samadams.Princeton.EDU> tr@SAMADAMS.PRINCETON.EDU (Tom Reingold) writes: >Are PC's running DOS more compatible with IBM video cards these days >than they were when MS-DOS came out? Years ago, you were asking for >trouble if you wrote directly to video RAM because many cards had their >display buffers at various addresses. Is this no longer true? I'd >like to know because it would be nice if the product I am developing >didn't need to care. > >Also, are the two addresses still the only ones to worry about? There >is one for monochrome and one for color, including CGA, EGA and VGA. >-- > Tom Reingold > tr@samadams.princeton.edu OR ...!princeton!samadams!tr These days it is expected that you will write directly to video RAM. It is considered a fact of life. You might have compatability problems with some really strange computers (like those not-quite compatables from 1983 or so), but I wouldent worry about these-- no-one else does! Yes, there are only two addresses of TEXT VIDEO RAM to worry about. I have written a program that is currently in use on over 100 machines-- from the original PC to 386's. It figures out which address to use, then writes directly to it. Out of those 100+ machines, I have never ran into compatability problems (even on a few Tandys :). Hope that helps... -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | do { 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | . . . If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame? | } while( jones);