home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!atha!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!kevinc
- From: kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Subject: Re: 1280x1024x16 colors with os/2!!!
- Message-ID: <kevinc.714344845@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
- Date: 20 Aug 92 21:07:25 GMT
- References: <16AUG199220473105@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.athabascau.ca
- Lines: 31
-
- cvadrtbc@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan) writes:
-
- >In article <f95mdlr.feustel@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes...
- >>I've seen a 1280x1024 display of the os/2 workplace shell. I want it!
- >>The display and controller are from IBM!!! The hardware currently
- >>costs 6000. Ask for The IBM Image Adapter/A w 3 megabytes and the 6091
-
- >Actually, I think it's capable for 1600x1280! Are you sure it costs
-
- this is noramally 1600 x 1200 not 1600x1280.
-
- >6000, I heard it was more like $3000 with 3 megs of VRAM. I personally
- >would "settle" for an ATI Graphics Ultra.
- >Srikanth
-
- Alas, some of us already have expensive high end boards that'll do
- resolutions like 1280 x 1024 x 256/16.7M (includeing 4M VRAM) plus
- on-board 8514/a and on-board SVGA with 1M. What we don't have yet is
- an OS/2 driver for this sucker.
-
- Just an observation, I'm pretty happy about the board I have (and I'll
- be on cloud 9 when they finish the OS/2 driver). I've got the Windows
- 3.1 drivers and tested the board vs. an ATI Graphics Ultra - no
- comparison. Don;t get me wrong the ATI GU is a wonderful board but
- it's not the best you can get. Those of us with vision problems need
- the higher resolution.
-
- Kevin
- --
- Kevin "autark" Crocker (Athabasca University)
- kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA -or- risk@cs.AthabascaU.CA
-