pti4378@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (IGOE, PT) (12/14/90)
I am running win3 on someone's 16 Mhz 386SX with a 512K Paradise board at 640x480x256. The video speed is (as many have pointed out) rather slow with the 256 color driver. I would like to know whether it is the speed of the CPU, the video board, or the video driver that is the "weak link". i.e., if I were to buy a different system, what would be the best component to improve upon to increase video speed?
a516@mindlink.UUCP (Jordan Melville) (12/16/90)
> pti4378@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes: > I am running win3 on someone's 16 Mhz 386SX with a 512K Paradise board at > 640x480x256. The video speed is (as many have pointed out) rather slow with > the 256 color driver. > > I would like to know whether it is the speed of the CPU, the video board, or > the video driver that is the "weak link". i.e., if I were to buy a different > system, what would be the best component to improve upon to increase video > speed? The reason it's so much slower, is because Windows has twice as much graphical information to worry about. 16 colours only needs 4 bits, whereas to you need 8 bits to create each pixel of colour on a 256 colour plane. This doubles the video memory overhead, and doubles the amount of work Windows has to do to show any information. It's a trade off, you just have to decide what you need more. Jordan. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Jordan C. Melville Voice: (604) 943-7155 Vancouver, BC BBS: (604) 943-3503 (2400baud) UUCP: a516@mindlink.UUCP "So let's make our own movies like Spike Lee, 'cause the roles bein' offered don't strike me, as nothing the black man can use to learn, BURN HOLLYWOOD, BURN" - Public Enemy "Burn Hollywood Burn"
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (12/17/90)
In article <4145@mindlink.UUCP> a516@mindlink.UUCP (Jordan Melville) writes: >> pti4378@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes: >> I am running win3 on someone's 16 Mhz 386SX with a 512K Paradise board at >> 640x480x256. The video speed is (as many have pointed out) rather slow with >> the 256 color driver. >> >> I would like to know whether it is the speed of the CPU, the video board, or >> the video driver that is the "weak link". i.e., if I were to buy a different >> system, what would be the best component to improve upon to increase video >> speed? > >The reason it's so much slower, is because Windows has twice as much graphical >information to worry about. 16 colours only needs 4 bits, whereas to you need 8 >bits to create each pixel of colour on a 256 colour plane. This doubles the >video memory overhead, and doubles the amount of work Windows has to do to show >any information. It's a trade off, you just have to decide what you need more. > Comparing 16 color VGA to 256 color VGA is **NOT** as simple as saying that there are twice as many bits. This is beacuse for the 256 color modes you MUST convey all 8 bits for every pixel. Due to the bit-plane design of the EGA/VGA in some cases - particularly text and simple lines - you can convey the information for up to 8 pixels in 8 bits. This is eight times faster. The EGA/VGA is a brilliant design. Really. Whoever decided how the architecture worked was a real great guy. Whoever DOCUMENTED it for IBM must have been a real dildohead. Doug McDonald