In article <1dl23cINNnnu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, kxj6@po.CWRU.Edu (Kijin Jung) writes:
|>
|> I've always wondered why video card manufacturers would not allow more
|> memory on their video cards. Since the number of colors is a function of
|> the memory on board and not on the analog monitor, why couldn't ATI (or
|> any manufacturer) set a maximum of more than 2MB so 24-bit color can be
|> achieved at 1024x768?
|>
|> Is the video chip itself a constraint? That is, a certain chip will only
|> allow X number of colors? With a non-accelerated card such as mine, there
|> will of course be a detrimental effect on speed performance if it was
|> allowed to go up to 16 million colors, but it would be nice to have the
|> option.
Its not a matter of the hardware...the hardware to do 24 bit color has been around a long
time...Its a matter of marketing and cost...making really high resolution 24 bit cards has,
until lately, been really expensive...and the speed of the systems (at least in the PC arena) hasn't hasn't been up to it. The hardware manifacturers don't want to make a card that nobody
will buy. Memory prices have come down now...so its more affordable for companies to make nice
24 bit cards...And affordable for people to buy them.
If you wanted high resolution 24 bit color a couple of years ago you should have switched to a
Silicon Graphics platform...I've been at 1280x1024x24 bit for the a while now... really nice
