Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: INSIDE THE IBM PC
Message-ID: <2688@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Jun-84 19:06:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2688
Posted: Fri Jun  8 19:06:14 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jun-84 01:36:03 EDT
References: intelca.297 duke 4396
Lines: 23

>From: wizard@intelca.UUCP Wed Jun  6 17:54:49 1984
>It disgusts me that someone should encourage anyone to bypass the
>bios and write directly to the video screen ram. This is the prime reason why
>it is so hard to integrate a higher resolution video card into the PC.
>[It's ignorant to suggest writing to the screen] to save time, when the
>user can assimilate the data only so fast.

Sometimes I flip through screens the same way (and for the same
reason) I flip through pages in a book.  I'm not reading what's
on the screen but scanning it, and in that case fast screen
updating is a necessity.  So I agree with Norton that writing
directly into display RAM is often a very good idea.

The problem of dealing with new display cards is a very good point,
however.  It's just that I'd advocate a different solution.
New display cards should provide a hardware capacity for imitating
the memory layout of older displays.  Several high-res displays
on the market now do this.

D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary