🚀 go-pugleaf

I...@home.now (Khorne (the blood god)) wrote:
>
> 	I bought the 2200xl 2mb pci version of the card and the damn thing
> didn't work!
> 	What i mean is It ran windows WAY slower, and only in 600x800
> resolution at 32 bit colors (sound good, but it ran only at THAT
> resolution! which none of the games it came with supported.)
> I ended up fdisk-ing and re-installing win95 (the truth is out! im
> running win95! oh the shame...) anyway, i fdisked, reinstalled the
> card and... nope! no go.  
> 	My old card even ran faster than the edge did, and it too is a diamond
> card. (stealth 64 for all who want to know. 2mb dram)
> 	So I sent the thing back to the place i got it from. 
> 	I'm going to go with the 3dblaster pci version. besides, id likes this
> card. (and i heard quake will have a special high-res mode for people
> with this card.)
> 
> There! now that wasn't as offensive as you though 
> it would be now was it!
> 
> -Khorne (your welcome)
> 
First of all, you can't get 600x800. I assume you meant 800x600.
And I don't think there is such thing as 32-bit color. If there was such
thing, it would be totally useless. Why? Well, here is why, in mode
1280x1024 you have 1,310,720 pixels on the screen. If you had 32-bit 
color, you would have 4,294,967,296 colors, wich end up adding to
3276 colors per pixels!! You can only have one color per pixel!!
Since 800x600 is lower than 1280x1024 it is totally useless to have 
those extra bits! The best color for todays technology is called True-
Color, wich is acheived using 24-bits per pixel. That's 16,777,216 
colors. Ends up being much more appopriate than 32-bit. That way
you don't waste those extra 8 bits. In the long run, at 800x600, you
will end up saving 3,840,000 extra bits. 
So what I mean is that 32-bit color is bu11 5H|7. There is no such 
thing as 32-bit. The maximum is 24-bit color. Which is more than enough 
at 800x600 and 1024x768 and 1280x1024 (not to mention 640x480)
Here is a list:
1-bit = 2 colors
2-bit = 4 colors
4-bit = 16 colors
8-bit = 256 colors
16-bit = 65,536 colors
15-bit = 32,768 colors (special bits)
24-bit = 16,777,216 colors (True Color)
32-bit = 4,294,967,296 colors  ( very unnecessary )

320x200 = 64,000 pixels
Many more resolutions between 640x480 and 320x200
640x480 = 307,200 pixels
800x600 = 480,000 pixels (Best resolution for 15" monitor)
1024x768 = 786,432 pixels 
1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels (Next Step quake editor)
1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels (Too small to see with naked eye)

In <DKvM2...@news2.new-york.net> Emre Yucel <amo...@bc.cybernex.net>
writes: 

>So what I mean is that 32-bit color is bu11 5H|7. There is no such 
>thing as 32-bit. The maximum is 24-bit color. Which is more than
>enough 

Acutally there is such a thing as 32-bit but your mostly right. A
32-bit image is really just a 24-bit color image with a 8-bit alpha map
(black and white image showing color intensities). 

These images are only useful when matting images on top of one another
when you want the top image to have partial transparency. Good for
putting anti-aliased CGI on top of live video without the edges looking
out of place.

So 32-bit does exist but its not very useful in say windows.

\/\/ill /<erslake

On 7 Jan 1996 01:38:01 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of Battle) wrote:

<khorne being unusually nice snipped>

>Get it through you head.  No one cares what you think.  I've
>added you to my kill file at work and after I post this reply
>I'm adding you to my kill file here at home.  

I'm interested in what anyone thinks. Doesn't mean I'll take any notice, but I
like to know peoples opinions all the same. It was around 20 lines that take
seconds to read. And posts from people like him make this group more interesting
than any other's I've seen.

>This group is so much more fun to read without you.

I think his medication is starting to take effect. He's calming down a bit now.


    \'''''',____                 ,./     ,.-':,   /'-,.''   ,.''-''-,./
'----'----''--*''-\,,.              _,-''     '-.'  '\,.,/''
#--#  /''     /   '   '---''\-, .,-'  Ste...@Thurgood.demon.co.uk
##-## \,.   ' ,._,-,-/--\---,-,- \.,_       ,,._                    ,./'
----------,._____,,...,...,./''      '-.,-'' ,, '-,...,./''\,..,.-''

bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of Battle) wrote:

>In article <4cnntg$9...@pegasus.interpac.net>,
>   I...@home.now (Khorne (the blood god)) wrote:
>>	I bought the 2200xl 2mb pci version of the card and the damn thing
>>didn't work!
>>	What i mean is It ran windows WAY slower, and only in 600x800
>>resolution at 32 bit colors (sound good, but it ran only at THAT
>>resolution! which none of the games it came with supported.)
>>I ended up fdisk-ing and re-installing win95 (the truth is out! im
>>running win95! oh the shame...) anyway, i fdisked, reinstalled the
>>card and... nope! no go.  
>>	My old card even ran faster than the edge did, and it too is a diamond
>>card. (stealth 64 for all who want to know. 2mb dram)
>>	So I sent the thing back to the place i got it from. 
>>	I'm going to go with the 3dblaster pci version. besides, id likes this
>>card. (and i heard quake will have a special high-res mode for people
>>with this card.)

Both those cards are lame.  Don't buy 'em, much better cards are on
the way.  
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  Send $5 to st...@escape.com for complete signature            + 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer: I am sovereign entity on the world-wide network known 
as the internet.  This network is not controlled by the whims of 
any government, judicial or law enforcement organization. As a
sovereign I am granted complete and universal freedom of speech
as defined by my own beliefs. I shall not be held accountable for 
any actions or information transmitted on this network by anyone 
for any reason at any time.  P.S.   Windoze - the world's most 
profitable joke.

Emre Yucel wrote:

> First of all, you can't get 600x800. I assume you meant 800x600.

Okay, looks like we're getting technical.  You *can* get 600x800 if you have 
a swivel monitor.

> And I don't think there is such thing as 32-bit color.

Indeed there is.

> If there was such
> thing, it would be totally useless. Why? Well, here is why, in mode
> 1280x1024 you have 1,310,720 pixels on the screen. If you had 32-bit
> color, you would have 4,294,967,296 colors, wich end up adding to
> 3276 colors per pixels!! You can only have one color per pixel!!

Well, your math may be impressive, but your color theory isn't.  32 bit 
color means that there are 32 bits per pixel, 8 for each of cyan, magenta, 
yellow, and black.  Yes, monitors work on RGB, not CMYK, so the video card 
works everything out for you.  In the end, you don't really get anything 
much different than 24 bit color, which is 8 bits for each of Red, Green and 
Blue.  8 bits corresponds to one color, and the three(for RGB) or four(CMYK) 
sets of 8 bits work together to make one color.  You do not get 3276 or 
whatever colors per pixel.  If you have 24 bit color, you get 24 bits per 
pixel, and although each pixel can only display one color at a time (duh!), 
they each have 16 million + colors to choose from.

> Since 800x600 is lower than 1280x1024 it is totally useless to have
> those extra bits! The best color for todays technology is called True-
> Color, wich is acheived using 24-bits per pixel. That's 16,777,216
> colors. Ends up being much more appopriate than 32-bit. That way
> you don't waste those extra 8 bits. In the long run, at 800x600, you
> will end up saving 3,840,000 extra bits.

Video cards are not banks.  You do not "save bits".  Bits are simply used to 
determine the color of the pixel.  Regardless of the screen resolution.  Of 
course, with a larger screen resolution, you must display less colors (less 
bits per pixel!) because the amount of RAM needed to draw the screen 
increases!  Math lesson: 800x600x24bits = 11,520,000 bits = roughly 1.44 
Meg.  1024x768x24bits =  18,874,368 bits = roughly  2.36 Meg.

> So what I mean is that 32-bit color is bu11 5H|7.

Wrong

> There is no such
> thing as 32-bit.

Wrong

> The maximum is 24-bit color.

Wrong

> Which is more than enough
> at 800x600 and 1024x768 and 1280x1024 (not to mention 640x480)

It has no relation to the resolution. Other than RAM required

> Here is a list:
> 1-bit = 2 colors
> 2-bit = 4 colors
> 4-bit = 16 colors
> 8-bit = 256 colors
> 16-bit = 65,536 colors
> 15-bit = 32,768 colors (special bits)
> 24-bit = 16,777,216 colors (True Color)
> 32-bit = 4,294,967,296 colors  ( very unnecessary )

Well, somewhat unnecessary
 
> 320x200 = 64,000 pixels
> Many more resolutions between 640x480 and 320x200
> 640x480 = 307,200 pixels
> 800x600 = 480,000 pixels (Best resolution for 15" monitor)
> 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels
> 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels (Next Step quake editor)
> 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels (Too small to see with naked eye)

If this resolution is too small to see with the naked eye, why would I set 
my monitor to it?  And what if I use a 20" monitor, what of the size then, 
hmmm?