From: waverheu@VUB.AC.BE (Verheulpen W.)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Subject: Re: Speed vs. resolution
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:39:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
              92

In a posting Joe Morris writes :
>
>
> Date: 15 Dec 1992 09:46:09 -0800
> From: Tony Abo <tabo@HITECH.COM>
>
> >>   Has anyone noticed that if you run Win at a higher resolution (1024x768)
> >>   that windows slows down? Maybe Im just Imagining it.
>
> >That doesn't surprise me.  If you consider the fact that the
> >display maps to memory, and higher resolution display requires
> >more memory to to represent the screen, and that "more memory"
> >takes longer to write than "less memory" it only follows that
> >screen updates will take longer.  You can bet that things running
> >in Windows do lots of screen updates.
>
> This is not true in all cases.  My video card (TSeng ET4000 based) acutally
> runs faster and takes less memory in 1024x768x16 as opposed to lower
> resolutions (not a huge difference, but enough to notice it).  It
> really helps me to get more on the screen at once.  Anyway..., I was told
> that this was not unusual as manufacturers usually optimize their cards
> in the "top" mode where they are usually bechmark tested against other
> video cards.
>
> While we are on the subject of video, I have a plea to all those programmers
> out there who develop some truly terrific shareware/freeware apps:
>
> Make sure it runs in SVGA (1024x768) properly.  I have lost count of all the
> freeware and shareware apps I've tried where the fonts in the dialog boxes
> and associated windows are extremely large that it screws up the display.
> Not sure why this ocurrs.  Doesn't happen with all of them, but about
> 30% this situation ocurrs.
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Joe Morris at Western Carolina University; Cullowhee, NC    Practice safe hex,
> Internet:  IS480P02@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU (preferable)       Just say NO to viruses,
> BITNET:    IS480P02@WCUVAX1.BITNET        And always wear a write-protect tab.
> ALL-IN-1 mail users:  IS480P02@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU@IN
>
>
I want to add my findings to this speed discussion.
I read some points given on the comp.os.ms-windows... news groups saying
that people seemingly noticed the OPPOSITE of the statements here ie
800x600x256 running faster than 800x600x16. So I conducted some wintach tests
and the higher the resolution the higher the speed.
800x600x32K gives the highest wintach figure with some slight enhancement
wether I put the video refresh in 56, 60 or 72 Hz.
Although only comparative tests, I would like to get some comments on this !
& it's not just a figure, you can just see that things go faster ?!


--
====================================================================
Willy Verheulpen                            Systems Coordination
                   Institute for Molecular Biology
Brussels Free University                                 Belgium
I-------------------------------------I----------------------------I
I Bitnet :   waverheu@bbrbfu60.bitnet I Things tend to get worse   I
I Intern :   waverheu@vub.ac.be       I under pressure (Murphy)    I
I_____________________________________I____________________________I
Usual Disclaimer: No connection with any commercial product.
====================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU