From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:00:56 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
To: Orlando Andico <orly AT gibson DOT eee DOT upd DOT edu DOT ph>
cc: Shawn Hargreaves <Shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Allegro Vesa mode graphics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.93.970131151924.1275C-100000@gibson.eee.upd.edu.ph>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970131135949.140o-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Orlando Andico wrote:

> > VBE 2.0 is still faster, though, just not by quite as much as you
> > implied :-)
> > 
> 
> I only use VBE 2.0 with UniVBE, I don't use DOS too much. Under
> Linux/XFree86, the card can be made to use a "linear framebuffer." Is this
> the same functionality as VBE 2.0? the X docs claims that LFB's don't give
> much of a speed improvement, at least on my card (CL5428) (which I realize
> is something of a lamer..)

LFB's might not give much of a speed improvement "under X" sounds more
realistic to me.  Does that sound right?


Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |    My webpage has moved and my address has changed.
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

LINUX: The ONLY bulletproof 32-bit operating system that has it all.