TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Monitor/Resolutions From:Matt Ion <soundy -at- ROGERS -dot- WAVE -dot- CA> Date:Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:38:58 -0800
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:45:46 -0400, Paul Branchaud wrote:
>If your product requires higher resolution (say 1024x768) and 16 million
>colors, the system requirements should clearly state that a SVGA card
>with a minimum of 1Mb VRAM (is that the right one?) is required.
Actually, 4MB RAM (VRAM or otherwise; VRAM is simply faster than DRAM) is
required for 1024x768x24 (that is, 24 bits-per-pixel, or 16.7 million
colors). 1MB will do 1024x768x8 (256 color)... barely.
It's a simple calculation to make: 1024x768=786432. At 256 colors - 8
bits, or one byte, per pixel, that 786432 bytes of video memory
neccessary. At 16bpp/64k colors, double that. For "true color" aka 16.7
million colors aka 24bpp, that would be 786432x3 bytes, or 2,359,296
bytes - 2MB RAM won't quite cut it, and the next step up is 4MB.
>should try to aim for the lowest common denominator, and I think it is
>safe to assume that 640x480 256 VGA is the lowest of modern common
>denominators.
Actually, technically, VGA spec is 640x480x4 (16 colors), which will work
with only 256k of video memory (VGA also includes various
lower-resolution and text modes, but I think the defining factor is that
it will operate within 256k video memory). Anything above that is
generally considered "Super VGA" or SVGA, although certain settings also
fall under the definitions of XGA and others.
>Others, who are more "in the know" of the hardware aspect
>of modern computing, might be able to make my foolproof assumptions proof
>of a fool. ;)
Well, I tried to be kind while shooting your comments full of holes...
:-)
Your friend and mine,
Matt
<insert standard disclaimer here>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
