Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Hanson who wrote (1451)	6/21/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: Sean W. Smith	Respond to of 14778

Just a guess, but I'd be surprised if MB on the card would effect the virtual res resolution or color depth, since the card is only accessing the 1024x768 at one time. Is the online help very good on how to use these functions? I thought that the manual was only moderately helpful. actually it does because the card is using its memeory not main memory to impliment the virtual desktop.... Sean

To: Dave Hanson who wrote (1451)	6/21/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

Virtual Resolution...Drive Philosophy The Matrox display utility provides for three options. One is all screen the same height with virtual screen to the left and right. Two is all vertical movement and three is proportional increase allowing both horizontal and vertical movement. The size of the virtual screen seams to represent the max resolution capability of the card and its RAM. If my monitor would allow a full 1920 X 1200 resolution I do not think I would have virtual resolution at this setting. As I decrease the color depth and resolution the virtual screen "space" increases. The card will accept 8MB more RAM for a total of 16MB. If this is allocated to 2D functions perhaps this would increase the virtual capability. This seems consistent with Sean's input. It seams like the card calculates the entire screen and then allocates only a portion of it to the visible screen, I do not think a larger virtual screen than I have now would be practical. With my current setting I have exactly one screen to the right.( I am using a 17 in monitor) Anything more and finding your way around would be an issue. With a 21 in monitor more virtual resolution might be a benefit as I would probably run the 21 in monitor at 1280 X 1040 or higher. I would want a complete second screen for the 21 in monitor setup. If I add the RAM I lose the option of adding the Matrox Roadrunner video capture daughter card. Sounds like you'll be able to boot to your heart's content! My current thinking is to keep the drives as drive pairs. I will maintain the 6.5 GB IDE drive as the primary Win95 OS. I will clone this drive to the second 6.5 GB drive as the KOT Drive. The second pair of drives will be for Win98. I will install and maintain Win98 on one of the two 2.1 GB SCSI drives and then keep the second matched drive as a KOT Drive for Win98. When I am satisfied with the Win98 setup I will transfer the OS from the SCSI drives to the Win95 drives. There will be no need for Win95 once I establish Win98. This should then free up the two 2.1 GB SCSI drives for ventures into NT. I am unsure of how to maintain the 6.5 GB IDE drives. I would like to contain the OS and primary applications in a partition less than 650 MB. This would match the capability of a CDR drive for backup and removal to low cost media. I then need one or two additional extended partitions ( I think this is your drive partition philosophy?). One partition for applications and one for data??. Did someone say there is a problem booting NT or Win95 from a CD? The AMI bios and the SCSI bios both provide for CD boot. Partitioning will complicate the drive lettering somewhat. The drive letters would be C:, G: H: on the primary drive. This could change if a drive fails or if I format the 2.1 GB drives NTFS. The only potential problem I see is with the application partition. I might have to execute from Windows Explorer instead of the menus if the drive letter changes. Zeupaul

To: Dave Hanson who wrote (1451)	6/26/1998 9:43:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

AGP/Win95/Win98 multiboot I would like to give the Win98 multimonitor options a whirl. Any thoughts on potential pitfalls? My concern is a loss of all video capability. I am still using Win95 as my primary OS. My version of Win95 does not support AGP. My plan is to 1) boot to Win98 and then install AGP support from the Inwill support CD. When I tried this before in the Win95 environment I got a severe error message. My version of Win95 did not support AGP. I removed the card and installed a Matrox MII PCI card. 2) Install the Matrox Productiva card in the AGP slot, leaving the PCI card in place and boot to Win98 and see what happens. The question is what damages do I do to the Win95 installation? Would the AGP support from the Inwill support CD be OS specific? ie not effect a Win95 installation? If I boot to Win95 it will see two cards and not know what to do with them. Hopefully Win95 will at least give me a display with a default VGA driver. Will I go to device manager and remove the AGP card and will the machine work as it did before in Win95? Zeuspaul