Take a chill pill.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Drew Northup
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 7:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Windows "splash screen" Resolution
Ouch man....., that isn't good.......
Any way...., that is what I had been trying to say....., it _is_ possible to
map a 320 by 400 vector-space (otherwise known as a framebuffer) to a 720 by
400 scan setting (meaning the clocks to match 720 by 400....., not having a
true resolution of 720 by 400). This was probably part of how they got
command.com/io.sys to do the splash screen without help!!!
As for only having access to 256K under VGA, I thought that was only version
1.0.., but again I could be wrong and need to check. I thought that it was
512K..... This is one issue that the resolution of may actually be useful
directly to this project!!!!
I have really never questioned the validity of the unchained mode x
assumption.... I only provided data that was asked for and would appreciate
not having such data used as a waepon to attack me.
Now please, if there is anything more about these damned splash screens that
needs to be said PLEASE REPLY TO ME DIRECTLY!!!!!! This argument has
clogged this list long enough!!!
Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Nick Behnken
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 7:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Windows "splash screen" Resolution
>
>
> Craig Ballantyne (OS/2 Bochs) got the splashscreen to display
> correctly, and
> so did I in the Win32 version at one point. Seems to me that it was
> 320x400. Why doesn't someone email Craig as my hard drive got trashed...
> again...
>
> Nick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Bond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 4:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Windows "splash screen" Resolution
>
>
> > Josh is right.
> >
> > Think of it this way, if the screen really was 720x400x256 colour, then
> > the framebuffer would occupy over 280Kbytes. A standard VGA only allows
> > access to 256K (I believe).
> >
> > Its really a mode-x 320x400, but the hsync and vsync frequencies
> > probably match the normal text mode.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Josh McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > Given enough coding time, slow enough horiz refresh, and
> > > incredibly fast IO, i could get more than 16 colours a scanline
> > > in textmode, but you can still only ever have 2 colours every
> > > 8 pixels (or 9 in normal text mode).
> > >
> > > I assure you, your monitor is just not telling you the truth, it
> > > _is_ unchained mode x. I'm not sure what you know about
> > > hardware, but monitors don't know resolution. It looks up
> > > the timing in a table and either a) the timings for textmode and
> > > modex are the same, or b) it doesn't have timing info in it's
> > > lookup table that match mode x, and it just defaults to that
> > > text mode (more likely).
> > >
> > > That and the fact that 320x200 doesn't expand nicely into
> > > 720x400...
> > >
> > > -Gfunk007
> > >
> > > "I like walking, but hiking is walking in areas with insects and steep
> > > inclines while carrying dried fruit, and I'm not down with that."
> > >
> > > :::: visit me - http://www.gfunk007.com/ :::: ICQ 74477509 ::::
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Drew Northup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 6:04 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Windows "splash screen" Resolution
> > >
> > > > Look guys..., I'm not sure what you know about
> hardware--but here are
> the
> > > > details. The actual graphics files (and the images built
> into io.sys)
> are
> > > > 320 by 400...., but the display algorithm (the text console
> built into
> > > > command.com) uses the native text mode as the display mode.
> This text
> > > mode
> > > > is 720 by 400 (by default....others are available via various
> hacks....).
> > > > This means that although the file only encodes a display
> space of 320
> by
> > > 400
> > > > it is being either expanded, or more likely from the appearance of
> > > > it--interpolated, onto the text console's frame buffer space. Note
> this
> > > is
> > > > also, as far as I know, only explicitly the case for command.com ver
> 7.0
> > > or
> > > > greater. I hope that this clears things up a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Drew Northup, N1XIM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf
> > > > > Of Josh McDonald
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 3:24 AM
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: Re: Windows "splash screen" Resolution
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup, sure is.
> > > > > -Gfunk007
> > > > >
> > > > > "I like walking, but hiking is walking in areas with insects and
> steep
> > > > > inclines while carrying dried fruit, and I'm not down with that."
> > > > >
> > > > > :::: visit me - http://www.gfunk007.com/ :::: ICQ 74477509 ::::
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Nelson Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: "Plex86" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: RE: Windows "splash screen" Resolution
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I think I know why Drew's monitor detected the wrong
> > > > > resolution.
> > > > > > 320x400 is an unchained mode x hack, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > Nelson Rush
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Listen... strange women lying in ponds distributing
> swords is no
> > > basis
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a system of government."
> > > > > > - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
