jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) (08/20/90)
I would like to find a video card that works with windows in the 1024x768 and 800x600 modes. Does any card out there have drivers yet to do this ? If so, what kind of performance do you get ? I'm running a 25mz '386 with no cache, 4MB of memory, and using Pagemaker, Finale, Word for Windows, and several others. Finale is a music notation system, sort of like a publishing package for music.Finale's screen update time is very slow even in 640x480 mode. (I don't know if this is due to it's own inefficiencies or to Windows draw routines) Thanks in advance, -jaz
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (08/21/90)
In article <1742@abvax.UUCP> jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) writes: >I would like to find a video card that works with windows in the >1024x768 and 800x600 modes. Does any card out there have drivers >yet to do this ? I have a Headland Technology Video-7 VRAM VGA. It has 800x600 and does 1024x768 noninterlaced. It can go up to 256 colors, even at 1024x768, although currently I believe the Win3 1024x768 driver can only do 16. According to an InfoWorld product comparison (July 16, 1990), this board equalled or exceeded the performance even of the high performance 8514/A and 34010 boards (costing three to four times as much) in most Windows tests, stomping them in the multitasking test. The VGA boards were much slower at Autocad redraws, as would be expected. IW ranked the Video-7 board the highest of all the VGA boards, claiming it had the highest performance and excellent driver support. V7's advertising does as well. They've cut the price recently, too -- I paid a bit over $300 at a local clone dealer, with the full complement of video RAM installed. (It comes with a seven year warranty, by the way.) V7's information number is 1-800-238-0101, in California, 1-800-962-5700, in Canada, 1-800-658-0642. If you plan to run at 1024x768 noninterlaced, by the way, a NEC Multisync 3D will not suffice -- it does not have enough bandwidth to support 1024x768 unless you run interlaced, and I think the interlace flicker, particularly with Windows with its many single-pixel-high lines, is unacceptable. I settled on a Sony Multiscan 14" monitor. The price is about the same (I paid around $625), and in a side-by-side comparison the Multiscan was, IMHO, much sharper at all resolutions. The 19" Sony Multiscan, which is what you really want if you are going to run at 1024x768, cost around $2200, which, unfortunately, puts it out of most peoples' price range (including mine). Obligatory Disclaimer: I have no relationship with Headland Technology or Sony other than as a customer. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "jackpot: you may have an unnecessary change record" uunet!sugar!karl -- v7 diff
jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) (08/21/90)
In article <1742@abvax.UUCP> jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) writes: >I would like to find a video card that works with windows in the >1024x768 and 800x600 modes. Does any card out there have drivers >yet to do this ? If so, what kind of performance do you get ? I'm >running a 25mz '386 with no cache, 4MB of memory, and using >Pagemaker, Finale, Word for Windows, and several others. Finale is >a music notation system, sort of like a publishing package for >music.Finale's screen update time is very slow even in 640x480 mode. >(I don't know if this is due to it's own inefficiencies or to Windows >draw routines) At the risk of sounding like I'm making a blatant plug, I'll go ahead and make a blatant plug. There are lots of companies with cards that'll do those resolutions, but I recommend the Video-7 VRAM or 1024i. Video-7 is consistently rated the best in the industry for driver support, and that includes windows 3.0. (To give you an idea, our code is the only non-Microsoft driver source included in their Windows Driver Development Kit.) There are a number of things to take into consideration when getting a card. First is, do you want that 1024x768 to be interlaced or non- interlaced? If your monitor can handle non-interlaced, then you definitely want that, but many monitors can't. (The VRAM does it non-interlaced, the 1024i uses interlacing.) You also need to be on the lookout for system incompatibilities. For example, Chips&Technologies chipset-based motherboards have problems with a lot of graphics cards because of design flaws. Realize that performance can often be *worse* for 1024x768 modes than 640x480. Because of the necessary bank-switching and the like, it can introduce all sorts of extra overhead. The difference is usually negligible, but don't expect gains just from having a different resolution. (However, going from the standard Windows VGA driver to a proprietary driver may help a lot because it'll be optimized to the card.) Lastly, see if you can get a demo of how a 1024x768 display will look on your monitor. On some smaller monitors the letters become so small that you get terrible eyestrain. And if it's an interlaced display, you can get some pretty bad flicker (which'll vary from monitor to monitor). Perhaps you'll decide you like 800x600 better. -- Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer. UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@apple.com
jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) (08/22/90)
In article <OUC5UG6@xds2.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >I have a Headland Technology Video-7 VRAM VGA. It has 800x600 and does >1024x768 noninterlaced. It can go up to 256 colors, even at 1024x768, >although currently I believe the Win3 1024x768 driver can only do 16. I'm afraid that this just isn't true. The VRAM can't do 1024x768x256, only 1024x768x16. (Not like 256-color drivers do much for you with the Windows apps that are out today...) An 800x600x256 driver is included, however. -- Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer. UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@apple.com
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (08/23/90)
In article <4075@hsv3.UUCP> jls@headland.UUCP (James Seidman) writes: >I'm afraid that this just isn't true. The VRAM can't do 1024x768x256, >only 1024x768x16. (Not like 256-color drivers do much for you with the >Windows apps that are out today...) An 800x600x256 driver is included, >however. I wondered about this. The InfoWorld article said it could, but it seemed like it would require more memory than the card has, which it turns out that it does. Sigh. My Video-7 VRAM VGA board died last night, BTW. Now we'll see how good support is under the seven year warranty. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "jackpot: you may have an unnecessary change record" uunet!sugar!karl -- v7 diff