On Friday 06 May 2005 09:16, Timothy Miller wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Was it decided whether to implement (a few) text modes only, vs vga
> > graphics modes as well? It would seem sensible to implement only
> > text modes for the time being, in order to leave more room on the
> > FPGA for our own (non-vga) graphics mode(s).
> >
> > If it is going to be text mode only, does that reduce the number of
> > registers that need to be fully documented? Or do we want to fully
> > document the vga graphics-related registers anyway, and just mark
> > the ones that are not involved in text modes?
>
> My opinion is that if we want to boot Windows, and we want to support
> safe mode, we need to support some graphics modes.
How important is it that the very first FPGA release boot Windows? How
about just booting Linux for the first release, and spend some saved
gates on more multipliers and memory control logic?
Maybe this is something we need to add to the survey:
a) Would you buy this card _only_ if it boots Windows (where nobody
really needs an open graphics card anyway)
b) Would you want this card even more if it _doesn't_ boot Windows :-)
c) Do you dual boot? Don't you have a working video card already,
that already has Windows drivers? Why not keep using that one to
boot Windows?
We can always follow up a few weeks later with a logic upgrade to boot
Windows. But I for one would not want to delay the Linux release by
even a week to accommodate that.
And: will Windows drivers even be ready by then? Is anybody really
passionate enough to write those drivers, particularly given the extra
level of pain they can expect for low-level Windows code?
/me listens for a thundering herd of volunteers...
Regards,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
