[comp.windows.ms] ATI 256-color Drivers, Winfract, and memory

bert@helix.nih.gov (Bert Tyler) (10/30/90)

> The earlier version of Winfract does not work (gives "unable to
> allocate global memory" error) but I haven't tried the new version yet.
> I was also unable to get a 256 color .bmp as background, but that is
> probably due to the fact that I only have a 1MB 286 motherboard.
 
That (admittedly uninformative - will fix) error message from Winfract
is caused by the fact that your system doesn't have enough free memory for
it to start up.  When Winfract first fires up, it looks around a bit 
figuring out what your hardware looks like, and starts up with a 2, 16,
or 256-color bitmap depending on what your video driver can support.  If
it can't get enough memory for that initial DIB, it spews out that ugly
error message and quits.

My guess is that your system had *just* enough free memory for Winfract to
fire up its default 200x150x16 Device-Independant Bitmap, but when you
switched to your 256-color driver, Winfract tried to GlobalAllocate enough
room for a 200x150x256 DIB instead - and couldn't get the memory.

Now, given that the size difference between those two bitmaps is all of
15000 bytes (assuming that the 256-color video driver takes up no more
room than the 16-color video driver), and version 2.0 of Winfract has more
doodads in it, the odds are that version 2.0 won't even get *that* far.


Bert Tyler
bert@helix.nih.gov
tub@nihcu.bitnet
73477.433@compuserve.com

pfeifer@hpavla.AVO.HP.COM (Mark Pfeifer) (11/02/90)

>/ hpavla:comp.windows.ms / yon%consl4.esg.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (David Yon) /  3:00 pm  Oct 31, 1990 /
>	Like most people who've eagerly tried out the new ATI 256-color
>drivers, I've also come to the conclusion that the performances costs 
>are steep.  What I'm wondering is, is this limited to ATI?  Hey, all
>you people with VGA cards with different chipsets (who've had 256-color
>drivers for months now :-( ), is there a huge speed difference between
>16-color and 256-color drivers on *your* hardware?
>
>David Yon
>CASE Consultant
>----------

I've used both the Paradise and Video-7 640x480x256 drivers on an HP RS/25C
(25MHz 386).  The Paradise was extremely slow, making ToolBook's Daybook
nearly unusable.  Switching to the 800x600x16 driver on the same machine made
the program _much_ more usable.

The Video-7 (using a 1024i card) was faster than the Paradise in 256 color mode,
but was still noticably slower than 800x600.

							Mark

jh5y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan Powell Hargrave) (11/05/90)

  I have a Logix VGA1000 with 512k and have been using the Trident Win3
drivers.  While the 256 color driver is noticibly slower than the 16
color driver at the same resolution,(Trident only supplied one 256
color driver: 640x480 :-( ) it is not slow enough to warrant changing
back to the standard VGA driver (I have a nice 256 color background. :-> )

  BTW, is there any way to actually use the 256 color palette?
Call me silly, but I'd like to have windows with a solid title bar.
(Not in the standard 16 colors, of course. :->)

  Jordan Hargrave
   Carnegie Mellon