Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utastro!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 16 bit cards vs 8, SHAFTED?
Message-ID: <14313@bigtex.cactus.org>
Date: 25 Feb 89 17:15:26 GMT
References: <37020@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Organization: Institute of Applied Cosmology, Austin TX
Lines: 21

In <37020@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, calhoun@cis.ohio-state.edu (robert r. calhoun) wrote:

> [...] I was asked if I wanted 16 or 8 bit type card, I was told 16
> was faster, so I chose it.

Definitely much faster.  You can access data 16 bits at a time (in an
AT), and there are fewer wait states per access (on an AT), though
this might not be a big deal if the video card inserts large numbers
of wait states on its own.

> I received the more expensive 16 bit card today (or did I) and it
> fits in my XT. As a matter of fact I am using it now.  I was under the
> impression 16 bit cards don't fit in XTs.  Do I have an 8 bit card?

Bizarre though it may seem, at least some 16 bit cards work just fine
in an 8 bit slot, with the 16 bit edge extension just hanging there in
mid-air.  The only one I have seen actually do this is the Video-7 16
bit VGA card.  The hardware people swear this is OK...
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen          james@bigtex.cactus.org   "Live Free or Die"
DCC Corporation     9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759         512-338-8789