> > Really? My win2k install couldn't do anything useful with -std-vga. > > It would only do the very basic 640x480x4 mode. I'm fairly sure win9x > > can't do anything useful with straight VGA either. > > Same here. Also std-vga seemed to be slower than cirrus when I tried > it recently on my linux guests, although I haven't actually measured > anything.
My mistake; Win2K doesn't like -std-vga. I confused 2K and XP. > > > Overall it seems to work much better than the default 5446 > > Julian, in what way is std-vga better than the cirrus emulation? I can go above 1024x768, which is realistically something I need in order to use QEMU as a viable replacement for VMware. With SuSE 10.1 guest I can't even get 1024x768 with Cirrus. SuSE claims it's doing 1024x768 but what I get is 1024x600. > > In my experience the Cirrus emulation "just works", and is supported > > by pretty much every OS out the box. AFAIK Windows earlier than XP > > doesn't needs additional 3rd party drivers to support anonymous VESA > > hardware. I agree that avoiding additional drivers is good. However it seems that both cirrus and std-vga have their shortcomings and neither is an ideal out-of-the-box solution right now. J _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
