[comp.sys.ibm.pc] A small mistake in my message about NEC II/Plus monitors

ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) (03/11/88)

I have just found out about some misinformation of mine.  I had said that the
NEC Plus has a resolution of 1024x768.

I was mistaken.  The XL has that resolution.  The Plus has a 960x720 
resolution.  You as I had stated, you STILL need the Plus if you wish to use
an aftermarket VGA board with (for example) 256x800x600 resolution since the
NEC II only has a max of 800x560 resolution.

Where I got this info was BYTE Feb., '88.  They used a Sigma VGA that is
touted to have 100% HARDWARE (not BIOS) compatibility to CGA, EGA, MDA, 
Hercules, and VGA (which is one of the boards the recommended in the March
issue)!!

chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (03/11/88)

In article <1693@bgsuvax.UUCP>, ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes:
> I have just found out about some misinformation of mine.  I had said that the
> NEC Plus has a resolution of 1024x768.
> 
> I was mistaken.  The XL has that resolution.  The Plus has a 960x720 
> resolution.  You as I had stated, you STILL need the Plus if you wish to use
> an aftermarket VGA board with (for example) 256x800x600 resolution since the
> NEC II only has a max of 800x560 resolution.

Actually, NEC has a habit of understating the capibility of their monitors
-- a real nit-picker would agree with them, but the II works fine with all
the 800x600 boards we have in house at STB (or at least all the ones I have
used).

> Where I got this info was BYTE Feb., '88.  They used a Sigma VGA that is
> touted to have 100% HARDWARE (not BIOS) compatibility to CGA, EGA, MDA, 
> Hercules, and VGA (which is one of the boards the recommended in the March
> issue)!!

Before anyone goes out and buys one of these boards because it is 100%
hardware compatible -- Sigma Designs, STB and several other companies that
were out in the market fairly early make at least two VGA cards each -- the
older design, a bit cheaper sometimes, is BIOS compatible and (usually) is
more CGA/Hercules compatible.  The newer design is MORE register compatible
and (usually) less CGA/Hercules compatible.  6 of the 8 vendors I know of
in the register compatible market use the Tseng Labs ET3000A chip so the
register compatible boards are much like the old EGA compatible ones in
the heyday of Chips & Technology.  The BIOS and clock frequencies are the
big differences -- mostly for the advanced video modes.

If you want IBM's OS/2 to run, the only real test is to run it (and return
the board or the operating system if they don't play togather).  Ditto for
Windows/386, and whatever other critical (or nasty) software you need to get
going.

Charles Marslett
chasm@killer.UUCP
[Alias: chief BIOS writer and coffee cup washer of STB Systems, Inc.]