sylvain@maxwell.Concordia.CA ( SYLVAIN GINGRAS ) (03/15/90)
I once saw in a store MS-Windows running in 1024x768 mode on an ATI-VGA Wonder. I played with it and really enjoyed being able to put so many open windows at once on the screen. The only problem came about when I tried Windows Write. The default font was awfully small (almost invisible). Using the Enlarge Font command would not help, I would then get only a few characters per line on the screen (and on the printer). As I am about to purchase that card, I was wondering if anyone has ever used Windows in 1024x768 (or higher resolution) and found a solution to the above problem. Thanks in advance for your replies. Sylvain Gingras.
tomer@rainbow.wbst128.xerox.com (Shmuel Tomer) (03/20/90)
I am using an ATI-VGA Wonder card (in a Gateway 386/20 machine, 4MB RAM, 65 MB hdd). I have a serious performance problem when using Windows (either 286 or 386) in the 1024x768 mode, using the driver provided by ATI, revision 1.03. Two operations in particular take unreasonable time. Moving a window around on the screen results in a VERY slow repainting of the window - this take between 10 to 30 (!) seconds. Scrolling a text editor (notepad, write etc.) by a single line, either using arrow keys or by clicking on the arrows in the scroll bar, is also VERY slow. In contrast, stretching a window is done reasonably fast (though not as fast as in the standard VGA mode) to the point that the best way to move a window is to stretch two sides or two corners. Also, paging through a file (page up/down buttons or clicking on the scrollbar) is reasonably fast. I called ATI and was told that it wasn't me - that's the way it works, and they can do nothing about it until Microsoft comes up with Windows that has a larger buffer (?). Yet, I can't imagine anybody actually using Windows with this kind of performance. Does anybody experience the same problems, or, better yet, does anybody know of a way to improve the situation? Any information will be appreciated. Shmuel Tomer.wbst128@Xerox.COM
phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/20/90)
Using an Orchid Prodesigner in 1024x768 mode with Micrografx
Designer, I found the performance also unacceptable. Let's
all hope that Windows 3.0 is much better.
--
Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
Boycott the census! With the history of abuse census data has,
can you afford to trust the government?tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (03/20/90)
Phil Ngai <phil@pepsi.AMD.COM> writes: > Using an Orchid Prodesigner in 1024x768 mode with Micrografx > Designer, I found the performance also unacceptable. Let's > all hope that Windows 3.0 is much better. ...but at least on a Paradise VGA Plus, 800x600 mode is not noticeably slower than VGA. And the resolution's not bad; maybe you could compromise until Microsoft makes the announcement we're all holding our breath for... [ \tom haapanen -- university of waterloo -- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i say what i say, but i say it for myself and myself only" -- me ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) (03/20/90)
In article <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) writes: > >I am using an ATI-VGA Wonder card (in a Gateway 386/20 machine, 4MB >RAM, 65 MB hdd). I have a serious performance problem when using >Windows (either 286 or 386) in the 1024x768 mode, using the driver >provided by ATI, revision 1.03. > >Two operations in particular take unreasonable time. Moving a window >around on the screen results in a VERY slow repainting of the >window - this take between 10 to 30 (!) seconds. Scrolling a text >editor (notepad, write etc.) by a single line, either using arrow keys >or by clicking on the arrows in the scroll bar, is also VERY slow. > >Does anybody experience the same problems, or, better yet, does >anybody know of a way to improve the situation? Any information will be >appreciated. I'm using a Video Seven VGA 1024i with Windows in 1024x768 resolution and I don't experience these problems. The redraw of moved windows, in fact, is nearly imperceptable. (My machine is comparable: Dell System 310, only 2 MB RAM.) I am using Windows/286 rather than /386 because of some incompatibilities, but it would seem to me that this would make it slower if it has any effect at all. I have Windows/386 as well, so I'll try the same operations with it when I get a chance. If ATI says that this is normal performance, then they must be way behind Video Seven. -- "I want to live in Montana and drive a | Mark A. Mitchell Georgia Tech pickup truck. Perhaps even a recreational | GTRI/STL/MSD Atlanta, GA vehicle." | mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu
mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) (03/21/90)
tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) wrote: } }I am using an ATI-VGA Wonder card (in a Gateway 386/20 machine, 4MB }RAM, 65 MB hdd). I have a serious performance problem when using }Windows (either 286 or 386) in the 1024x768 mode, using the driver }provided by ATI, revision 1.03. I'm using a similar setup: Dell System 310 (20 MHz 386), 2 MB RAM, Video Seven VGA 1024i card in 1024x768 mode with Video Seven driver. }Two operations in particular take unreasonable time. Moving a window }around on the screen results in a VERY slow repainting of the }window - this take between 10 to 30 (!) seconds. Scrolling a text }editor (notepad, write etc.) by a single line, either using arrow keys }or by clicking on the arrows in the scroll bar, is also VERY slow. Both operations are hardly noticeable on my machine. }I called ATI and was told that it wasn't me - that's the way it works, }and they can do nothing about it until Microsoft comes up with Windows }that has a larger buffer (?). This sounds like bull, since Video Seven is able to do it without performance degradations. -- "I want to live in Montana and drive a | Mark A. Mitchell Georgia Tech pickup truck. Perhaps even a recreational | GTRI/STL/MSD Atlanta, GA vehicle." | mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu
dan@rna.UUCP (Dan Ts'o) (03/21/90)
In article <7269@hydra.gatech.EDU> mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) writes: >In article <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) writes: >>I am using an ATI-VGA Wonder card (in a Gateway 386/20 machine, 4MB >>RAM, 65 MB hdd). I have a serious performance problem when using >>Windows (either 286 or 386) in the 1024x768 mode, using the driver >>provided by ATI, revision 1.03. >>Two operations in particular take unreasonable time. Moving a window >>around on the screen results in a VERY slow repainting of the >>window - this take between 10 to 30 (!) seconds. Scrolling a text >>editor (notepad, write etc.) by a single line, either using arrow keys >>or by clicking on the arrows in the scroll bar, is also VERY slow. >>Does anybody experience the same problems, or, better yet, does >>anybody know of a way to improve the situation? Any information will be >>appreciated. I have experienced exactly the same thing. It is particular bad when you need to repaint a DOS-apps window. A Windows window is slow but perhaps just useable. A DOS-apps window can take 30secs to repaint !!! I also called ATI and they also said that it was what it was, and there was nothing to do about it. They recommended using 800x600 mode. 800x600 IS a slot faster and quite useable. That is the way I use the ATI card now. > >I'm using a Video Seven VGA 1024i with Windows in 1024x768 resolution and >I don't experience these problems. The redraw of moved windows, in fact, >is nearly imperceptable. (My machine is comparable: Dell System 310, only >2 MB RAM.) I am using Windows/286 rather than /386 because of some >incompatibilities, but it would seem to me that this would make it slower if >it has any effect at all. I have Windows/386 as well, so I'll try the same >operations with it when I get a chance. I have, on another machine, a Video 7 VRAM card. That card is FAST. Works great with Windows 386, EXCEPT that the drivers have a bug such that when using the VRAM with DOS 4.01, a DOS-apps always defaults to the A: drive. This drives (:-)) me crazy. Video 7 claims this bug will be fixed in a new release SOON. Does your VGA 1024i board have this problem ? >If ATI says that this is normal performance, then they must be way behind >Video Seven. Agreed. The greatest thing about the ATI board is the built in mouse port which save a board or COM port. Unfortunately Gateway's ATI board doesn't include the mouse port. This is the biggest beef I have with Gateway. Otherwise, I'm a happy Gateway customer five times over. BTW, I hope you got the NEC 3D monitor from Gateway (an extra $100, but worth it.) It sounds like you should send the ATI board back to Gateway, get the $200 credit and get the VGA 1024i (or the ATI with the mouse and live with 800x600 resolution.)
rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) (03/21/90)
In article <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) writes: >I am using an ATI-VGA Wonder card (in a Gateway 386/20 machine, 4MB >RAM, 65 MB hdd). I have a serious performance problem when using >Windows (either 286 or 386) in the 1024x768 mode, using the driver >provided by ATI, revision 1.03. >Does anybody experience the same problems, or, better yet, does >anybody know of a way to improve the situation? Any information will be >appreciated. I am using a Zeos 386/25 machine with 4Mb of memory and a Video-7 VRAM card. I did not notice much difference in speed between the 800x600 mode, the 1024x768 mode, or the normal VGA mode. The biggest slow down still seems to be the memory management overhead and not the video board itself. Most of the time if a screen takes a while to update it is waiting on the drive or something else. It has been a long time since I have run it in normal VGA mode so I will try it and see how much of a speed difference there is. I know that I am not getting any screen updates as slow as 15 seconds. I also know that the VRAM is faster than the Hercules Mono card I was using. Does anyone have any screen update benchmark programs so that we can make sure that I am not lying about the VRAM preformance? -----Dale Rogerson-----
mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) (03/21/90)
dan@rna.UUCP (Dan Ts'o) wrote: } } I have, on another machine, a Video 7 VRAM card. That card is FAST. }Works great with Windows 386, EXCEPT that the drivers have a bug such that }when using the VRAM with DOS 4.01, a DOS-apps always defaults to the A: drive. }This drives (:-)) me crazy. Video 7 claims this bug will be fixed in a new }release SOON. } Does your VGA 1024i board have this problem ? I don't know. I have DOS 3.3. I don't know if I can get a copy of 4.01 to test it out, but if I can I'll give it a try. -- "I want to live in Montana and drive a | Mark A. Mitchell Georgia Tech pickup truck. Perhaps even a recreational | GTRI/STL/MSD Atlanta, GA vehicle." | mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (03/21/90)
mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) writes: >In article <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) writes: >> >> Shmuel Tomer is upset that his Windows performance is unacceptable >> in 1024x768 mode. >I'm using a Video Seven VGA 1024i with Windows in 1024x768 resolution and >I don't experience these problems. The redraw of moved windows, in fact, >is nearly imperceptable. (My machine is comparable: Dell System 310, only >2 MB RAM.) I am using Windows/286 rather than /386 because of some >incompatibilities, but it would seem to me that this would make it slower if >it has any effect at all. I have Windows/386 as well, so I'll try the same >operations with it when I get a chance. As far as Win286 being slower than Win386: I don't know if the problem is related, but anyway... I recently acquired PC Paintbrush Plus for Windows. When running in standard VGA mode, it takes about a half minute to clear the screen with Win386. The PC Paintbrush IV Plus (non-windows) takes less than a second. I called Z-Soft to complain. They said they were getting good performance. Then - "Oh, your using Win386 - That's MUCH slower. Our product isn't really compatible with Win386. You should use Win286." I told them I wasn't about to fall back to Win286. I told them I was upset because their literature said it was compatible with Windows. Now, when I see "Windows" without a 286/386 qualifier, I assume it works for both. I asked them when they would properly support Win386. They said, "When Win386 3.0 comes out. It will run fine then." COME ON Microsoft. I need 3.0 NOW! Version 2.11 isn't worth the effort. A coworker of mine has a PS/2 Model 80 (20 MHz) with 8514. It gets good performance in 1024x768 mode. Of course, I believe the 8514/A has a graphics coprocessor on board. I also noticed that the 8514 monitor doesn't flicker at high resolutions. Is that because of a high persistence phosphor? I'm fairly certain it's interlaced. Now that I think about it, he was using the run-time version with WinWord. I believe that's Win286. I haven't seen him use Win386. Hmmmm. I'm beginning to detect a pattern. Marshall, abandoning Windows until 3.0 -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@wind55.seri.gov Senior Computer Engineer VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (03/21/90)
In article <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) writes: > >I am using an ATI-VGA Wonder card (in a Gateway 386/20 machine, 4MB >RAM, 65 MB hdd). I have a serious performance problem when using >Windows (either 286 or 386) in the 1024x768 mode, using the driver >provided by ATI, revision 1.03. > >Two operations in particular take unreasonable time. Moving a window >around on the screen results in a VERY slow repainting of the >window - this take between 10 to 30 (!) seconds. Scrolling a text >editor (notepad, write etc.) by a single line, either using arrow keys >or by clicking on the arrows in the scroll bar, is also VERY slow. >In contrast, stretching a window is done reasonably fast (though not >as fast as in the standard VGA mode) to the point that the best way to >move a window is to stretch two sides or two corners. Also, paging >through a file (page up/down buttons or clicking on the scrollbar) is >reasonably fast. > >I called ATI and was told that it wasn't me - that's the way it works, >and they can do nothing about it until Microsoft comes up with Windows >that has a larger buffer (?). Yet, I can't imagine anybody actually using >Windows with this kind of performance. > >Does anybody experience the same problems, or, better yet, does >anybody know of a way to improve the situation? Any information will be >appreciated. > >Shmuel > >Tomer.wbst128@Xerox.COM Sounds like somebody at ATI needs to get to work and actually write a decent driver!!!! Since the screen is fast in stretching windows, I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that it is the hardware!! To stretch a window actually takes more programming and is harder to do than to move a window. To move a window requires simply copying the video bit map to memory, actually moving the window logically, and copying the memory back to the window. What might (pure speculation-----) be the problem with the ATI driver is that they use many of Microsoft's prewritten (in the sense that if the driver doesn't include them, Windows uses its own) GDI routines. Many of MicroSofts BitMap GDI routines are supposidly very slow--Especially if the bitmaps are bigger than 64K even if it supports them. Of course the problem might be just the opposite---that ATI BitMap routines are real slow and MicroSoft's real fast! CAN SOMEONE PLEASE COMMENT ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In either case I think that ATI needs to get to work, esp since many posters have said that the Video Seven Board is just fine--- I don't think VRAM should make that much difference--ANY COMMENTS??? How well do other boards work, like the Logix, Paradise, and others???? Finally, could somebody please post some more time trials like--- "To Move a window that fills 2/3rds of the screen about 30 pixels left on my Board Brand X took 3 Seconds" -or- "To stretch my window from using the upper right 1/3rd of the screen to almost the full screen (note -not the full screen button) on my Board Brand X took 1.5 Seconds" This also might help pin down the problem. Thanks Dean Wallwey
wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (03/21/90)
One last comment--If the slow problem is in the ATI driver, could it be because ATI is (in which case they shouldn't be) or is not (in which case they should be) "banding" when copying large bitmaps to and from the display memory?? COMMENTS--??? Dean WAllwey
geoff@nluug.nl (G. Coupe EPD/74 O75/1347) (03/21/90)
I use a Compaq fitted with their AG1024 high-res board, and this appears to perform well. However, the Compaq-supplied Windows/386 driver appears to have a bug - Word for Windows version 1.0 and DynaComm version 2.1 do not work. WFW crashes when the Print Preview command is given; DynaComm just crashes. The version of the Compaq driver is 1.1. Anyone got a workaround, or can shed some light? - Geoff Coupe, SIPM-EPD/74 tel (+31)70 377 6155
rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) (03/21/90)
Someone asked me if I was running Win286 or Win386 with my VRAM card. I am sorry, I should have included that information. Oh, well...I am running Win286 with 386^Max. I have seen the ATI Wonder card running on a 10MHz 286 Machine in the 800x600 mode and it performed just fine. I have a feeling that it is the driver or Win386 doing the dirty deed of slowing things down. It might be interesting if someone with the ATI card work run the DEVCAPS program from Petzold's book and we could compare that to the VRAM card to see if there were any differences. > I recently acquired PC Paintbrush Plus for Windows. On a completely unrelated topic - What do people think of this program. I find it to be a very poor paint program and a poor Windows program also. Printing with this program is especially bad. Any comments? > COME ON Microsoft. I need 3.0 NOW! Yea, me too. >Marshall, abandoning Windows until 3.0 Try running Win286 and 386^Max. It works fine for running just Windows programs. Doesn't help you run DOS programs tho. Waiting on 3.0. Heck lets wait for 4.0 and 586's. -----Dale Rogerson-----
mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) (03/22/90)
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) wrote: }mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) writes: } }>I'm using a Video Seven VGA 1024i with Windows in 1024x768 resolution and }>I don't experience these problems. The redraw of moved windows, in fact, }>is nearly imperceptable. (My machine is comparable: Dell System 310, only }>2 MB RAM.) I am using Windows/286 rather than /386 because of some }>incompatibilities, but it would seem to me that this would make it slower if }>it has any effect at all. I have Windows/386 as well, so I'll try the same }>operations with it when I get a chance. } }As far as Win286 being slower than Win386: } } Then - "Oh, your using Win386 - That's MUCH slower. Our product isn't } really compatible with Win386. You should use Win286." I told them } I wasn't about to fall back to Win286. I tried my machine with Windows/386 as well, and there was no noticeable change in performance. This again points us (I think) to ATI's driver, or lack thereof. -- "I want to live in Montana and drive a | Mark A. Mitchell Georgia Tech pickup truck. Perhaps even a recreational | GTRI/STL/MSD Atlanta, GA vehicle." | mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu
sv@v7fs1.UUCP (Steve Verity) (03/22/90)
In article <327@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> tomer@rainbow.UUCP (Shmuel Tomer) writes: >I called ATI and was told that it wasn't me - that's the way it works, >and they can do nothing about it until Microsoft comes up with Windows >that has a larger buffer (?). Yet, I can't imagine anybody actually using >Windows with this kind of performance. > Our windows guy says this sounds like a bunch of hooey to him. Our (Video-7) windows drivers are an order of magnitude faster then what you describe. Is your card perhaps mistakenly running in 8 bit mode? >Shmuel > >Tomer.wbst128@Xerox.COM disclaimer: Of course I'm biased, you should have bought video-7 in the first place :-) -- ...........>..........>........>......>...>...>..>..>..>..>.>.>.>>>>>>>>+ . Steve Verity sv@v7fs1 + + Now where did I leave my D50? + . Video-7 / Headland Technology + ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!sv + .. +
gyugyi@portia.Stanford.EDU (Paul Gyugyi) (03/22/90)
I'm using Video7's 1024i in 800x600 mode, running in 8 bit bus mode, and it's fast. The 1024x768 caused too much flicker for me. I did have a remark: how many colors in the ATI 1024x768 mode? The 1024i will do 1024x769 in either 2 or 4 colors. I recall ATI sqeezing out mode colors in lower res modes, perhaps they give more than 4 colors. Oh: I just checked and my board has a driver for 1024x768, 16 colors with 512K (that's only 8 colors the screwy was win/2.x works). So make sure you mention how many bit planes the driver's pushing around before you talk speed. p.s. I did run in 640x480x256 color mode for one day. It took forever to do anything, and I kept running out of memory because bitmaps took up so much room. -gyug
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (03/23/90)
In article <1531@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >Phil Ngai <phil@pepsi.AMD.COM> writes: >> Using an Orchid Prodesigner in 1024x768 mode with Micrografx >> Designer, I found the performance also unacceptable. Let's >> all hope that Windows 3.0 is much better. > >...but at least on a Paradise VGA Plus, 800x600 mode is not noticeably >slower than VGA. And the resolution's not bad; maybe you could compromise >until Microsoft makes the announcement we're all holding our breath for... I am not sure whether this speed issue is Windows or Designer. I find that many of Micrographx's programs do not have an optimal refresh algorithm. Any change you make requires the entire document to be redrawn. In 1024x768 more of the document is displayed and therefore you are not only waiting for the document to be redrawn, but also the entire workspace (the area used by the app). I think that Micrographx needs to improve in both areas. It is kind of like the old 1-2-3 calculation method. Make a change which only affects one dependent cell and calculate all 10,000 cells. I am sure the issue here is more complicated, but the idea is the same. Signature under construction ______ / | Richard Oppenheimer | \/ Computer Science Center | Ri University of Maryland __|__ __ College Park, Maryland ,USA | | |______|| \ oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (office) | | OO OO--0-| richard@wam.umd.edu (home) ****************************************************************** My employer cares not what I think and knows not what I say. The opinons expressed herein are my own and are not endorsed by the Computer Science Center. ******************************************************************
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (03/23/90)
In article <1003@rna.UUCP> dan@rna.UUCP (Dan Ts'o) writes: >In article <7269@hydra.gatech.EDU> mmitchel@msd.gatech.edu (Mark A. Mitchell) writes: >> >>I'm using a Video Seven VGA 1024i with Windows in 1024x768 resolution and >>I don't experience these problems. The redraw of moved windows, in fact, >>is nearly imperceptable. (My machine is comparable: Dell System 310, only >>2 MB RAM.) I am using Windows/286 rather than /386 because of some >>incompatibilities, but it would seem to me that this would make it slower if >>it has any effect at all. I have Windows/386 as well, so I'll try the same >>operations with it when I get a chance. > > I have, on another machine, a Video 7 VRAM card. That card is FAST. >Works great with Windows 386, EXCEPT that the drivers have a bug such that >when using the VRAM with DOS 4.01, a DOS-apps always defaults to the A: drive. >This drives (:-)) me crazy. Video 7 claims this bug will be fixed in a new >release SOON. > Does your VGA 1024i board have this problem ? I have a Northgate 386 4MB, Video 7 VRAM, and NEC 3D. I run Windows/386 and have found no bugs or imcompatibilities with the drivers. I run DOS 4.01 and use many DOS-apps, none of which default to the a: drive inadvertently. Signature under construction ______ / | Richard Oppenheimer | \/ Computer Science Center | Ri University of Maryland __|__ __ College Park, Maryland ,USA | | |______|| \ oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (office) | | OO OO--0-| richard@wam.umd.edu (home) ****************************************************************** My employer cares not what I think and knows not what I say. The opinons expressed herein are my own and are not endorsed by the Computer Science Center. ******************************************************************
minakami@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Michael K. Minakami) (03/23/90)
In article <18652@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: >Sounds like somebody at ATI needs to get to work and actually write a >decent driver!!!! Since the screen is fast in stretching windows, I >VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that it is the hardware!! To stretch a window >actually takes more programming and is harder to do than to move a window. >To move a window requires simply copying the video bit map to memory, I doubt that copying display memory to main memory is feasible; 1024x768 cards have 512K on board. Even if you were to copy only the areas actually sed by the adapter and compressed two pixels/byte (assuming 16 color mode), you'd still need something on the order of 384K. From looking at performance of Windows apps, it looks as if windows are asked to repaint themselves after a move/resize. Can someone confirm this? (still, this is no excuse for the *very* poorly written drivers. The one I have doesn't allow me to switch between standard and windows apps without completely mucking up the screen). Michael