Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: PC graphics....Is it hopeless
Message-ID: <46900010@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 88 14:44:00 GMT
References: <1132@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>
Lines: 13
Nf-ID: #R:silver.bacs.indiana.edu:1132:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:46900010:000:635
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Mar  8 08:44:00 1988



>     I have been looking at VGA capabilities and wondering why
>  such limitations?  Can't we use a better video co-processor
>  and get better results?  Or is this one of those IBM things?

       Perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit more fully.
The only obvious thing left out of the VGA is a 480X640X256 color mode.
It has enough memory for this, but somehow it just got left out.
It couldn't use a "better" video coprocessor; it doesn't have one
at all. YOU could use a video coprocessor in your PC; there are lots of
boards out there with them. Of course, most aren't compatible with 
the new and incompatible PS/2's.