rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) (06/30/89)
I am in the market for a cheap VGA adapter. I have lowered my sights from 800x600x256 to 800x600x16 ( I would still like the option to upgrade). Probably the most important feature I need is Windows/286/386 support. The current board of choice seems to be the Video-7 V-RAM, but this is just too expensive for me. What about the Video-7 FASTWRITE VGA board? I have not seen any reviews of it in the magazines. Anyone know anything about it. The ads say that it will do 800x600x16 and that you can expand it from 256k to 512k. Can it then display 800x600x256? The STB boards seem to have great Windows drivers, according to the last PC magazine the STB board was slow *except* when running Windows. We have a VGA Wonder here at work and it does not hav a Windows/386 driver and only one Windows/286 driver. While we are talking about VGA, has anyone seen that new monitor by Seiko (CM-1430)? It has a dot pitch of .26mm and lines instead of dots. -----Dale Rogerson-----
chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (07/02/89)
In article <2565@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM>, rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) writes: > > I am in the market for a cheap VGA adapter. I have lowered my sights from > 800x600x256 to 800x600x16 ( I would still like the option to upgrade). > Probably the most important feature I need is Windows/286/386 support. > The current board of choice seems to be the Video-7 V-RAM, but this is just too > expensive for me. What about the Video-7 FASTWRITE VGA board? I have not seen > any reviews of it in the magazines. Anyone know anything about it. The > ads say that it will do 800x600x16 and that you can expand it from 256k to > 512k. Can it then display 800x600x256? To the best of my knowledge, the V7 Fastwrite card is functionally equivalent to the VRAM card except where the additional speed of the VRAM card is necessary for some function (perhaps the 1024x768 non-interlaced mode, or perhaps the 800x600 256 color mode, but I really doubt it -- maybe someone from Video 7 will clear this up). If I had to say, I would expect the Fastwrite to do 800x600 256 colo just as easily as it does 640x480 and I believe I have seen that advertised. > The STB boards seem to have great Windows drivers, according to the last > PC magazine the STB board was slow *except* when running Windows. We have > a VGA Wonder here at work and it does not hav a Windows/386 driver and only > one Windows/286 driver. (I work for STB, doing VGA BIOSes among other things, and I can say that our Windows drivers are mostly provided by Tseng Labs so other Tseng based cards -- say the Orchid Designers and Genoa's Tseng based card -- should have more or less the same set. We do have a slightly buggy Windows/386 driver we have substituted for a slightly buggier one from Tseng that is uniquely STB's, but the next generation driver from Tseng looks good enough that we will be distributing it unchanged.) Actually, the reason we are somewhat slower than other Tseng cards is not necessarily a good-vs-bad issue. You can get a significant (30%?) performance increase by selecting a higher percentage of video memory cycles to be assigned to the processor and a lower percentage to be assinged to the video refresh logic. This works well in a DOS environment (Tseng Labs reccommends it, I believe), but if you try o support protected mode environments you then have to either insure the faster clocks are not selected (no 800x600 or 1024x768) or insure the protected mode driver turns off fast mode for you when he leaves text mode. Needless to say, we went for slow but sure, though if we get enough flak we will change. > While we are talking about VGA, has anyone seen that new monitor by Seiko > (CM-1430)? It has a dot pitch of .26mm and lines instead of dots. Yes, its on my desk right now. I still like it a lot, but it has a "feature" that is causing me a lot of pain: if even one horizontal sync pulse is dropped, and this is very possible in a mode change, the monitor goes into a forced 640x??? mode (31 KHz horizontal sweep rate) for about 7 seconds. The symptom is that when entering the 1024x768 resolution modes with most video cards that support that mode the screen wraps horizontally for about 7 seconds! Otherwise, it is a great fixed frequency monitor (obviously, you do not get 800x600 256-color displays, but if 1024x768 16-color and 640x480 are sufficient, I would still reccommend it). > -----Dale > Rogerson----- =========================================================================== Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <== Apply all standard disclaimers Wordmark Systems <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us <== soon to be attctc.dallas.tx.us I think
kji@vpnet.UUCP (Ken Isacson) (07/04/89)
Check your newstands for a copy of PC Magazine. They just did a review of VGA cards. I think that would answer all your questions, and then some :-)
gatesl@netcom.UUCP (Lee Gates) (07/05/89)
I have seen the article, and the only board which passed all the tests was the RVGA II board from Rennasance(sp?). The board has 256k on it, and isn't expandable, but it does all the modes up to 800x600x16. As I recall the board is quite fast, and can be bought for around 270$. lee -- gatesl@netcom.uucp
nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) (07/05/89)
Note that even though the ATI VGA Wonder did not pass two tests, it got PC Magazines Editor's Choice award because it processed instructions much faster that the other Video cards. It also has a built in mouse port and is an auto-sensing multiswitching card--it is compatible with almost all monitors that can be used with a PC. The tests that the ATI failed were not deemed important for most VGA software. The processing speed of the VGA card is significant if you use graphics intensive programs, such as Xwindows under SCO Xenix. With a slow VGA card, Xwindows under Xenix is practically useless.
chasm@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (07/05/89)
In article <1685@netcom.UUCP>, gatesl@netcom.UUCP (Lee Gates) writes: > > I have seen the article, and the only board which passed all the tests > was the RVGA II board from Rennasance(sp?). The board has 256k on it, and > isn't expandable, but it does all the modes up to 800x600x16. As I recall > the board is quite fast, and can be bought for around 270$. I have never felt very good spelling the R... word either ;^), but a point to consider is whether you want to pass all the PC Labs tests. I work for a company that builds VGA cards, and one of my main tasks is to determine if we will gain or lose sales by passing such tests -- for example, if you are using a "register compatible" VGA chip on your board some programs, like Word Perfect, will not run properly either stand alone or under Windows 386 if the chip is configured to pass the vertical blank test. This is the test the IBM VGA adapter board fails to pass. Another problem area arises if you permit switching to video modes 2 or 3 from monochrome modes (again, the PS/2 VGAs do allow this, and the adapter board does not) -- if you do, several programs (including the Zenith editor BSE) will no longer run in monochrome mode. So, do you run compatibly with the PS/2 (and have problems with non-MCA computers) or do you limp along with IBM's adapter card (and mimimize the limitations, while failing several tests). We also deliberatly fail one of PC Labs' cursor emulation tests: they require that you match exactly IBM's emulation of CGA cursors, even when the IBM emulation makes no sense (the cursor sits exactly on top of the monochrome underline, so if the cursor is moved over an underlined character it completely disappears...). That particular test ruffles my feathers more than I like to admit. Do they want my CGA emulation to flash the screen while scrolling, too? > lee > -- > gatesl@netcom.uucp Anyway, be careful you really want what you ask for... =========================================================================== Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <== Apply all standard disclaimers Wordmark Systems <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us <== soon to be attctc.dallas.tx.us I think
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (07/06/89)
In article <2565@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) writes: |While we are talking about VGA, has anyone seen that new monitor by Seiko |(CM-1430)? It has a dot pitch of .26mm and lines instead of dots. I've got one and like it a lot. The image is quite nice. Not up to the quality of the Zenith FTM, but the FTM is limited to 640x480 while the Seiko/Sony will do 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768. It is still nicer than most other VGA style monitors I've seen. I much prefer the Sony Triniton cylinder to a spherical tube. I use it with Windows 286 and have tried CGA, Herc, VGA, and (what I call) UltraVGA. All except the last work really well. The only problem with UltraVGA(1024x768) is that the fonts aren't quite right and the characters end up way too small. I haven't heard many complaints about the interlacing used to achieve UltraVGA. Certainly it doesn't bother me. In addition to use with Windows, I've viewed some GIF files and everyone who's seen them marvel at the quality of the image. As long as you are using a controller that provides the modes you need (if you need CGA, for example), the Seiko ought to make you happy if that's the size monitor you want. The price is right, the image is good, and there aren't too many products that offer higher resolution. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil "The government is not your mother."
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (07/06/89)
In article <14867@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes: > >Note that even though the ATI VGA Wonder did not pass two tests, it >got PC Magazines Editor's Choice award because it processed instructions >much faster that the other Video cards... I and some co-workers evaluated the ATU Blunder card a couple of months ago. We concluded that for our uses it was absolutely unacceptable because of its slow speed (actually, "speed" is the wrong word here.) So why does the ATI card seem to be so fast in other peoples tests? Well, I think it has mostly to do with "Does The Test Use BIOS Calls" or "Does The Test Access The Screen Directly?" Our tests access the screen memory directly. We have a 386-based Smalltalk "bit-blits" (that we were hoping to market but has been shelved) for one test; we have an internal-use-only IC layout package and a 386-based version of a popular circuit analysis package that also plots to the screen directly. In each and evey one of these tests the ATI card showed itself to be one of the slowest cards we had ever used. HOWEVER: if a "benchmark" uses BIOS calls, and the video BIOS is written more efficently than the IBM-clone version (and almost ANYTHING would be better than some we've seen) the performance could be GREATLY improved over a competitor's product. Many INT 10 (I think it is) functions are MASSIVElLY inefficent (for example, saving each and every register, doing something that doesn't change a single register, then restoring all of these unaltered registers). By doing a GOOD job of writing the video BIOS routines a particular vendor could achieve significant improvements in speed. >The processing speed of the VGA card is significant if you use >graphics intensive programs, such as Xwindows under SCO Xenix. With >a slow VGA card, Xwindows under Xenix is practically useless. ^^^^ Because of the difference in how "slow" is determined, and because a UNIX driver may very well manipulate the display memory direclty, I would be EXTREMELY reluctant to link DOS-based speed measurements to UNIX, X-Windows or any other performance metrics. kEITHe
chasm@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (07/07/89)
In article <26215@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > In article <2565@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) writes: > |While we are talking about VGA, has anyone seen that new monitor by Seiko > |(CM-1430)? It has a dot pitch of .26mm and lines instead of dots. > > I've got one and like it a lot. The image is quite nice. Not up to the > quality of the Zenith FTM, but the FTM is limited to 640x480 while the > Seiko/Sony will do 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768. This is the second time I have seen this comment (that the Seiko monitor supports 800x600 resolution modes). The one on my desk rolls terribly when I try to bring up 800x600 on any of my STB cards (as well as on the Genoa and Video 7 cards). It is one of the first ones sold in this country, is it possible they have redesigned it? Could someone who has used it in 800x600 mode identify the video board and (if necessary) the driver(s) used? I like it a lot, and if it can be used in this mode STB should be supporting it. Thanks, Charles Marslett > -- > Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil > "The government is not your mother." =========================================================================== Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <== Apply all standard disclaimers Wordmark Systems <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us <== soon to be attctc.dallas.tx.us I think
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (07/08/89)
In article <8567@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US> chasm@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) writes: |This is the second time I have seen this comment (that the Seiko monitor |supports 800x600 resolution modes). The one on my desk rolls terribly I'm going to have to retract what I said. I was working off the Orchid ProDesigner manual, which says "displays 800x600 resolution on an IBM 8514 monitor". (which by the way is apparently displayed *interlaced* on 8514 monitors) However, I have not personally tested the 800x600 mode. In fact, I just tried to run Windows 2.10 with it and it puts up a green screen and hangs. 640x480 and 1024x768 work so it doesn't matter much to me, but it is strange. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil "The government is not your mother."
nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) (07/09/89)
In article <5513@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: >I and some co-workers evaluated the ATU Blunder card a couple of months ago. >We concluded that for our uses it was absolutely unacceptable because of its >slow speed (actually, "speed" is the wrong word here.) >So why does the ATI card seem to be so fast in other peoples tests? >Well, I think it has mostly to do with "Does The Test Use BIOS Calls" or >"Does The Test Access The Screen Directly?" Our tests access the screen >memory directly. The PC Magazine Benchmark tests video bios and video register compatibility and speed. [It includes a Windows-based instruction benchmark test.] I hope that the article was based on both types of access, not just one or the other. Also, I thought that accessing the registers directly was inherently faster than using the bios. >In each and evey one of these tests the ATI card showed itself to be one of >the slowest cards we had ever used. Yikes! Which version of the ATI card did you evalute? Did you evaluate the ATI VGA Wonder 512K or did you evaluate the older ATI VIP card. How much memory did you have. Which specific operating system did you use--SCO Xenix or Interactive, or something else? >Because of the difference in how "slow" is determined, and >because a UNIX driver may very well manipulate the display memory >direclty, I would be EXTREMELY reluctant to link DOS-based speed >measurements to UNIX, X-Windows or any other performance metrics. If a test is measuring pure register-level or bios-level response, why would the operating system make a difference? Isn't it risky to write a Unix VGA driver that accesses the registers directly? Thanks, nghiem@vondrake.cc.utexas.edu
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (07/09/89)
In article <14995@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes:
<In an earlier article I wrote:
<>I and some co-workers evaluated the ATU Blunder card a couple of months ago.
<>Well, I think it has mostly to do with "Does The Test Use BIOS Calls" or
<>"Does The Test Access The Screen Directly?" Our tests access the screen
<>memory directly.
<
<The PC Magazine Benchmark tests video bios and video register compatibility
<and speed. [It includes a Windows-based instruction benchmark test.]
It also uses drivers supplied by the vendors, which means that a
well-written driver may very well show it's associated card to (1) perform
better than another card & driver combination and (2) rank in a different
order of speed performance than it might in our direct video-display
accessing tests.
(By the way, I think I'll be able to get the MS-DOS binary for our test
sent of to Rahul pretty soon. But don't write for it - I don't have it
(yet) and I'll be submitting it as soon as I get it.)
<I hope that the article was based on both types of access, not just one
<or the other. Also, I thought that accessing the registers directly was
<inherently faster than using the bios.
I'm afraid you may be hoping in vain, but I'm not sure...
<>In each and evey one of these tests the ATI card showed itself to be one of
<>the slowest cards we had ever used.
<Yikes! Which version of the ATI card did you evalute? Did you evaluate
<the ATI VGA Wonder 512K or did you evaluate the older ATI VIP card.
<How much memory did you have. Which specific operating system
<did you use--SCO Xenix or Interactive, or something else?
Yep: ATI Wonder w/512K RAM. MS-DOS 3.30A. 4 Megabytes of 32-bit-wide
system RAM. We didn't benchmark it under any **IX.
<>Because of the difference in how "slow" is determined, and
<>because a UNIX driver may very well manipulate the display memory
<>direclty, I would be EXTREMELY reluctant to link DOS-based speed
<>measurements to UNIX, X-Windows or any other performance metrics.
<If a test is measuring pure register-level or bios-level response,
<why would the operating system make a difference? Isn't it risky
<to write a Unix VGA driver that accesses the registers directly?
The quality of the video display driver provided by the **IX vendor will
greatly affect the performance of the video display system. Said driver may
access the display directly, or may use the display card's BIOS. Hence I
find it unrealistic for a test run under MS-DOS (or Windows) to necessarily
be an accurate reflection of that same display card's **IX performance.
Hope I've been a little clearer this time.
kEITHenghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) (07/10/89)
In article <5535@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: #>In article <14995@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes: #><In an earlier article I wrote: #><>I and some co-workers evaluated the ATU Blunder card a couple of months ago. #><>Well, I think it has mostly to do with "Does The Test Use BIOS Calls" or #><>"Does The Test Access The Screen Directly?" Our tests access the screen #><>memory directly. #>< #><The PC Magazine Benchmark tests video bios and video register compatibility #><and speed. [It includes a Windows-based instruction benchmark test.] #><I hope that the article was based on both types of access, not just one #><or the other. Also, I thought that accessing the registers directly was #><inherently faster than using the bios. #> #>I'm afraid you may be hoping in vain, but I'm not sure... I looked at the article last night [Shucks, it was on my desk all this time.] The article is in the July '89 issue of PC Magazine. The performance benchmarks was based upon both bios and register level performance. The Tseng Board and the ATI VGA Wonder performed comparatively about the same. The ATI VGA Wonder got editors choice because it was also Auto-sensing multi-switching, which allows it to work with any IBM monitor and because it has an on board mouse port. I'm looking forward to the posting of the benchmark you used. Thanks. nghiem@emx.utexas.edu