From: adhir@cygnus.umd.edu (Alok Dhir)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Why XGA-2?
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:20:36 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Oct13.154103.27660@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.222518.12059@news.columbia.edu> am66@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Alexander Maldutis) writes:
>>I'm curious:  why all the big fuss about XGA-2?  I agree that IBM should be 
>>commended for once more introducing a new standard, this time with real
>>functionality, bu the specs of the board just don't excite me.  Given that
>>ATI will be shipping its Ultra Plus and Pro series, which do 800x600 in 24
>>bits, 1024x768 in 65K and 1280x1024 in 256, what are the real advantages of
>>XGA?  As a current owner of an ATI Ultra, I find 1024x768x256 too limiting
>>for OS/2, especially since IBM still has not implemented dynamic pallette
>>adjustment [it's pretty sad when my WIN-OS2 session has a much prettier
>>background than OS/2, not to mention file viewing and such].  To my 
>>knowledge, the ATI boards won't be that terribly more expensive than the XGA,
>>and give you putatively faster performance with more colors.
>
I agree with EVERYTHING said above.

>People never learn do they?  Everyone pooh-poohed 8514/a until OS/2
>got popular and they discovered that their "superior" standards
>weren't being supported.  Now they're doing it again.
>
8514/a is STILL unsupported.  Even IBM will be releasing seamless drivers
for it LAST.  Tseng 4000 comes first.  I think most people are VERY glad
they didn't get stuck with the largely unsupported 8514/a business.  Almost
ALL svga games are VESA...NOT 8514/a.

>If ATI simply puts out an even faster 8514/a board, it had better not
>cost more than an XGA board, considering the tremendous range of
>features that XGA offers (if drivers are released that use it).  If it
>offers new features, do you have any gurantee that ATI will support
>them far into the future.
>
>The XGA standard is just that - a standard.  IBM will always have
>driver support for it.  This is significant since you're not using DOS
>and third-party companies are more likely to drop OS/2 support as soon
>as times look tough for that market.

But why would times start looking tough at all unless something better came
out to replace OS/2 (WinNT, NextStep486) and OS/2 dropped behind?  I firmly
believe that if the service pack comes out and fixes all the problems we're
having, and IBM eases up the installation process a bit (let's face it, 
you need to be an expert to install OS/2 and get it working right), then
there is NO reason it will not be supported.  The ball is in IBM's court.
>
>So you can pick waht you want if raw performance is your guiding
>factor, but an IBM standard is much safer to be using in a time when
>manufacturers still aren't really committed to OS/2.

I will be happy to switch away to a different system if OS/2 remains
unsupported.  But I don't believe that I will have to.  OS/2 seems good
enough to me that I think it will be around for a while and will gain
plenty of support.  There is no reason to believe otherwise.  Buying an
inferior card in fear of ATI not supporting OS/2 is foolish.  If we were
talking about Mom and Pop's Super Great Video Card then I'd understand
sticking to a standard, but let's face it, ATI is HARDLY a mickey mouse
operation.  They will support whatever OS deems supporting.  I have heard
that ATI is actually shipping drivers with their cards now.

I am definitely buying an ATI Ultra Pro EISA as soon as it comes out (and
costs less than $500...).


-- 
 ============================================================================
 Al Dhir                      			   Technical Consulting Staff
 Internet: adhir@cygnus.umd.edu	  	 University of Maryland, College Park
 Bitnet:   adhir%cygnus.umd.edu@Interbit      (301) 405-1500 * (301) 405-3014