Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!fangchin From: fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: Mentor & Trident VGA cards - which one is the best ? Message-ID: <1991Apr6.192215.29729@leland.Stanford.EDU> Date: 6 Apr 91 19:22:15 GMT Article-I.D.: leland.1991Apr6.192215.29729 References: <1991Apr3.071713.6290@fel.tno.nl> <3725@d75.UUCP> Organization: AIR, Stanford University Lines: 73 In article pjv@fct.unl.pt (Pedro Jorge Veiga) writes: >In article <3725@d75.UUCP> woan@nowhere (Ronald S Woan) writes: >> In article <1991Apr3.071713.6290@fel.tno.nl> jsgn3@fel.tno.nl (Jos Groot) writes: >> >- Mentor card based on Tseng's ET4000 Turbo MegaVGA Chip and BIOS >> > >> >- Trident card >> > >> >Both have 1 Mb RAM and support a 1024*768 pixels non-interlaced display. >> >Can anyone recommend one of these cards on ground of capabilities, speed, >> >compatibility, etc. ? >> >> Software support is about even but the Trident cards are dogs when it >> comes to Windows 3.0 use at the higher resolutions. Go with the ET4000 >> based card... > >I strongly disagree as I have one and currently work with Windows 3 >under 1024x768x256. So far it hasn't bit me nor has it said anything >to provoke my anger, mainly because they don't have mouths but >specially because they can't talk! >Anyway, back to the issue, call 1024x768x256 low resolution or what? :-) >I must add that with the card I found an amazing array of drivers for >all sorts of software (yes, Win3.0 included) on earth and some stuff >only seen in the products of Douglas Adam's vivid immagination... > But for X11R4, Trident chipset is not so good anymore. Thomas Roell, the creator of the famous X386 X11R4 port PD server, considers the memory manage- ment of Trident chipset braindamaged so he decided not to support it. ET4000 was instead chosen. This does not mean that Trident could not be made to work fast for MSDOS apps. Just for UNIX graphics applications, Trident is not the first choice per a first rate X expert (T.R. of course). X386 allows a user use res up to 1024x728x256 and 1152x900x16, for those who are curious about it's capability. On a 33Mhz w/o 387, it shows BETTER performance than a SUN SPARCstation 1.! Note, this is achieved without using a coprocessor assisted board like WD8514! Just a plain ET4000 card. I would like to know if any MS Windows 3.0 driver is so fast and flexible, allowing it's users select and design a prefered resolution, like now I am using 832x600 on my NEC Multisync II. If a MSW3 driver can do so, I may consider using MSDOS sometime. Please note this is just my personal preference only and not construe it as a flame to MSDOS. I fully aware it's VERY useful to millions people. Just would like to bring in some new perspective to the discussion. I know PC Mag editor Davrok was wrong when he claimed in his Inside Track column that X can be used only on a 486. I use it all the time on a 3 yrs old 20Mhz 386 w/o cache and it's definitely faster than my friend's 33Mhz MSDOS box running MSW3 when screen update is compared. All resolutions mentioned in my writing ARE NONINTERLACED. I think ET4000 is better if you don't want to just ran MSDOS stuff. Sorry Bill Gates. Hopefully bought in nteresting info for yow. Regards, Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University ps. for those who are more curious, I have 640x480x256 68Hz screen refresh rate 704x528x256 65Hz screen refresh rate 752x564x256 63Hz screen refresh rate 832x600x256 60Hz screen refresh rate I can switch among them using Alt-Cntl-Keyboard +- + for up, - for down. Nothing in the MSDOS world can offer this kind flexibility. And I have virtual resolution up to 1152x900 on my humble NEC Multisync II! Correct me if my claim is wrong.