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