On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Richard wrote:
In article <4FE16406.7040409 at jwsss.com>, jim
s <jws at jwsss.com> writes:
the only thing I saw in the listing you pointed
out is that the video
sucks. It would be adequate to usable for text, but graphics, not so much.
It's not bad for it's time:
Graphics support
- 640 x 480 with 256 colors
- 800 x 600 with 256 colors
- 1024 x 768 with 16 colors
800x600 256 colors is pretty typical VGA for the period.
Hell, that's better than Tektronix graphics terminals of the mid 80s
:-).
Given the specs, it most likely has 256KB of video memory, but because it
is using some PC-type hardware, it /might/ even be possible to shoehorn
512KB or even 1MB in there by swapping out DIPs. In theory, software
permitting, 1MB of video memory would allow 256 color mode (8bpp) at
1024x768 or 65K color mode (16bpp) at either 640x480 or 800x600.
Windows 3.1 itself could happily handle 1024x768 at 16M colors (32bpp) if
the video adapter had enough memory [4MB, actually 3072KB, or
(1024x768x32) / 8192 = 3072].