🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug4.172927.115@vulcan.resmel.bhp.com.au>  writes:
> This is fine for MS-Windows when you are the only user, as you are only  
waiting
> for the graphics to finish. What about under UNIX , NT or OS/2? If the  
you accessing large database with a GUI based application, will you be  
better off
> with the smart S3 that will probably let your 486 spend more time on  
accessing
> the disk / or ethernet, at the SAME time as the S3 card updates the  
display,
> moves the mouse etc? 


Using a S3 based VGA card with anything but Windows would be a very
bad idea.  The S3 card is designed around Windows.  It has it's own
special calls that only Windows currently uses.  It would be possible
for other programs to use the calls, but why redesign UNIX calls 
around a graphics card?  If I were running UNIX on a PC I would 
prefer the ET4000 Local Bus VGA "card".  There are better though.
I am no expert, but a ATI Graphics Ultra Card (not local bus) beats
many of the Local Bus Chips in many benchmarks.  The key factor here
is the graphics co-processor.  A good co-processor can more than make
up for a slow bus... then again the same card as a local bus chip
should be even better, but you have to find a motherboad manufacturer
who puts what you want on the board... and as far as I know Targa 
doesn't do it yet :). 
 
====                                                                 ====
= Christopher C. Penney              E-mail: penney@convex.cl.msu.edu   =
= Computer Consultant                        penney@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu =
= ACM Vice Chairman                  Office: 114 Computer Center        = 
= SEC/ACM Representative                     Michigan State University  =
= SEC/CASE Center Representative             East Lansing, Michigan     =
====                                                                 ====