Talk:VGA-compatible text mode
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Expansion required: what are the actual video timings for each text video mode - interlaced or progressive, sync polarity, blank intervals, etc. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the SVGATextMode section.
File:Itmouse.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Itmouse.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
Modern, Recent, Latest
Please avoid such terms, or qualify them with actual dates (e.g. "modern (2010-2013) video cards"). Write the article so that it will still make sense when someone reads it in 5 or 10 years. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- “Modern” means roughly since 1996. It is contrasted to the “classical” VGA (both for PS/2 and PC) and its early derivatives (so named SVGA cards and some others). Where the article says anything about “latest”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Intel's claims about the extended 9-column character range
The revision from 09:40, 4 October 2014 states that the "0xC0-0xDF" is wrong, and that the characters 0xB0-0xDF all have their 8th column repeated as the 9th. The source is some Intel documentation, plus an unverified claim that "on screen shots it can be seen that the shading characters 0xB0–0xB2 do have a repeated 9th column".
I'd like to see such screenshots that aren't (1) misinterpreted, (2) taken from Intel hardware, or (3) part of this very article (with the words "self-made" in their description). None of the VGA cards I've used over the years has ever exhibited such behavior. And trust me, when you deal extensively with ASCII/ANSI art, you do pay close attention to what those shading characters look like.
This claim may be true for Intel's on-board chips, but their assertions about "errors" in IBM docs cannot be accepted without conclusive evidence. If such is not supplied, they should be removed. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's 0xC0-0xDF, not 0xB0-0xDF. Time to fix this error – the claim of 0xB0-0xDF is spurious and without real-life proof. Whatever statement Intel makes about "errors" in IBM's documentation is completely unsupported by fact.
- In real life, all actual screenshots show that this is wrong (whether taken from real hardware, or from emulators that take great care duplicating the video hardware's behavior – DOSBox, PCEm, etc.). Here's the most pertinent example: the original IBM VGA card (AKA the PS/2 Display Adapter), showing its output in 9x16 text mode.
- You can clearly see the characteristic blank columns between the repeating characters 0xB0-B2 (just like every other VGA-compatible card I've ever seen). Ergo: IBM's documentation is correct, and so is the FreeVGA Project. The 9th dot column is inactive for 0xB0-0xBF; duplication only happens for 0xC0-0xDF.