On Saturday 07 May 2005 16:47, Patrick McNamara wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > >On Saturday 07 May 2005 09:24, Patrick McNamara wrote: > >>I don't like VGA registers either. Even less now that I've been > >>documenting what they actually do. Unfortunately, unless people > >> only want to use the card as a second head, we pretty much have to > >> implement some part of VGA. You have to have 640x480x4 available > >> to boot Windows. Very little text mode stuff actually uses INT10h > >> to do it's work. Most of it is done through direct access to > >> display memory. Yes, it sucks. Yes, I think we would all like to > >> be able to skip it. Unfortunately it's a necessary evil to build a > >> card that will work in most x86 systems. > > > >Did you mean "most Windows systems"?
I'm still wondering what you mean by "most x86 systems". Did you mean "most Windows systems" or "most of the systems of people we hope to sell to"? > >I would not have any problem > > with the concept of delivering a logic upgrade to add > > Windows-bootability a few weeks after delivering a card configured > > for testing/development as a non-bootable or linux-bootable-only > > graphics card. > > Based on the project plan Timothy posted, the development hardware > will be available well before there is a graphics card core to go on > it. It's not something you have to wait on to buy the development > board since the dev board is much more generic and a product in and > of itself. You can buy the development board as soon as it's > available. At some point in the future, there will be an image you > can load on it that will provide you a "working" video card. Before > that there will probably be a number of images that provide you a > "partially working" video card. So does that mean you agree with me, or? 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)
