Generic video (VGA) driver?

Does such a legendary beast exist for W98?
It seems that at least 1024x768 in 16 bit colour is a standard few monitors
can't do now. A generic driver could default low, and let the user set higher
standards for a short test, keeping the setting if it works (W98 allows that
anyway).

When I look at a specific driver I see an enormous amount of complexity to
handle specifics of some adapter, but if they have enough in common, some
generic driver might exist, but I've never heard of anything like this.

W98 has one, sort of, but it's no good for more than 640x480 in 16 colours.
Does anyone know if there's a real generic driver that can let people specify
major standards on any adapter?

Ideally I'd like one that can do the following standards, but I'd settle for
less than the full set if I have to.

Refresh rates: 60,75,80 Hz
Colour detail: 4,8,16,32 bits/pixel
800x600
1024x769
1152x864 (not so important, maybe)
1280x1024 (This one IS important to me, if I'm lucky enough to get generic
support for it)
1600x1200 (Got to try, no?)

I don't know much about video drivers. There might be good reasons why
'generic' is impossible, but clearly it exists, up to a point, or W98
wouldn't come with one. Did anyone improve on that idea and make one that
does a lot more on pretty much anything?

In message ,
Lostgallifreyan writes:
Does such a legendary beast exist for W98?
It seems that at least 1024x768 in 16 bit colour is a standard few monitors

(The colour depth is the card, not the monitor.)
[]
W98 has one, sort of, but it's no good for more than 640x480 in 16 colours.
(i. e. 4-bit colour.)
Does anyone know if there's a real generic driver that can let people specify
major standards on any adapter?

ISTR there is, though I think I've seen systems that don't offer it!
Under the top row (I think it's the top row), "generic" (or something
like that) rather than specific manufacturer, there is "Standard VGA",
which I think gives you your 640x480x4, but there is also something like
"Expanded VGA" or "Extended VGA", which gives - I can't remember (I'm
not on my '98 machine at the moment) at least 800x600, and I think
1024x768, at at least 16 bit (256 colours). [256 colours is sufficient
for a surprising amount of material, especially if it allows
palletisation, which I'm not sure if that does.]

Ideally I'd like one that can do the following standards, but I'd settle for
less than the full set if I have to.

Refresh rates: 60,75,80 Hz
Colour detail: 4,8,16,32 bits/pixel
800x600
1024x769
(-:
[]
I don't know much about video drivers. There might be good reasons why
'generic' is impossible, but clearly it exists, up to a point, or W98
wouldn't come with one. Did anyone improve on that idea and make one that
does a lot more on pretty much anything?

I think one of the System Requirements for '9x - and even 3.1 for that
matter - was that the graphics card (and monitor) should be capable of
"VGA", which meant 640x480, at 4 bit colour depth, and do so without
requiring drivers. I think that originally was chosen as there was a
fair chance that it could even be displayed on most televisions [on
either side of the pond] (though needing a VGA to video converter).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I was court-martialled in my absence, and sentenced to death in my absence, so
I
said they could shoot me in my absence. -Brendan Francis Behan, playwright
(1923-1964)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

1024x769
(-:


I couldn't find Usenet's edit button... Ò^O

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

Does anyone know if there's a real generic driver that can let people
specify major standards on any adapter?

ISTR there is, though I think I've seen systems that don't offer it!
Under the top row (I think it's the top row), "generic" (or something
like that) rather than specific manufacturer, there is "Standard VGA",
which I think gives you your 640x480x4, but there is also something like
"Expanded VGA" or "Extended VGA", which gives - I can't remember (I'm
not on my '98 machine at the moment) at least 800x600, and I think
1024x768, at at least 16 bit (256 colours). [256 colours is sufficient
for a surprising amount of material, especially if it allows
palletisation, which I'm not sure if that does.]


I tried that, I think. Selected a nonstandard driver list, selected SVGA,
switched off hardware acceleration on the adapter, it installed fine, but at
boot, always protested and reverted to 640x480 4 bit. I tried forcing it with
modes and other settings added to the registry. I've done this sort of thing
in the past to good effect, but this time nothing works. Maybe Via's ITX
boards do something really weird that only Via ever lerned to drive.

(Even 16 colours can be fun, in an 8 bit system. I found that icons muct have
the trasparency and inverse 'colours' and black and white. The rest can be
anything. So long as the system can show those, plus anything else onscreen
at the time, it works. This trick allows direct replacement of shell icons
with identical data sizes and patterns. I had fun with that for a while,
and still use some of them now..)

I won't follow this tack any further, I decided a base install is just going
to have to have whatever it takes to allow manual install of drivers as the
makers intend. Anything else is so complex that it belongs to the truly
arcane side of OS and hardware development, and very few people can go there
and it makes no sense to limit a system that much. W98 in full form has weird
stuff like arbitrators and enumerators that I don't understand, but I bet
it's easier to make those work on a base install from the ground up, than it
is to make multiple devices and drivers co-operate without them.

(Can be different base installs too, my current one is close to ideal for
basic processing tasks with minimal GUI controls, and a console. A base with
readiness for added hardware will grow a lot before it's similarly self-
contained and complete for its purpose.)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

It seems that at least 1024x768 in 16 bit colour is a standard few monitors

(The colour depth is the card, not the monitor.)


True. Analog input. (Until DVI-D, anyway) All the same, I get confused
when I see things like this:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Class\Monitor

If you look in there and get lost awhile it is entirely easy to lose any
distinction. Given that monitors can't do all resolutions and refresh rates
anyway, it makes some sense not to think of these settings as relevant only
to the adapter.

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
in :

[]

True. Analog input. (Until DVI-D, anyway) All the same,
I get confused when I see things like this:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Class\M
onitor

If you look in there and get lost awhile it is entirely
easy to lose any distinction. Given that monitors can't do
all resolutions and refresh rates anyway, it makes some
sense not to think of these settings as relevant only to
the adapter.

The monitor is usually best left as "plug and play monitor",
especially depending on what video drivers you are using. Some
of them are a real PITA to set up. You have to go BOTH into
desktop-rightclick-properties, AND into Control Panel. A bunch
of times.

I think what you need is a "Super VGA" driver. /Maybe/ XVGA. I
imagine they're all over the place.

It /will/ be useful to know exactly what your chip/video card's
model # is.

Older (OLDER) CRT monitors can't go much above 75, and I don't
know what the hell is going on with the LCD crap. I had to
borrow one, it was a nightmare, but it did accept an 85Hz
refresh rate instead of only 60 as I expected. I hope I die
before my CRT does.

You may not be able to get some of the higher resolutions you
mentioned, let alone at the high refresh rates. There is usually
an inverse relationship.

thanatoid wrote in
:

You may not be able to get some of the higher resolutions you
mentioned, let alone at the high refresh rates. There is usually
an inverse relationship.



Yes, based on the scan coils in a CRT mostly, I think. Wide scans on big
screens come up against their inductance, so to keep amplitude, frequency has
to fall.

Hopefully I'll figure out what's crucial to where generic OS support for
video must hand over to the hardware-specific driver. I don't know how soon
I'll understand enough of this to make it work manually yet. I just keep
footling and refining what I have, until some bit of lucid understanding
comes out of it and gives me the next direction to move. I'm currently
looking at how VXD's get loaded... I think the answer will come out of that.

thanatoid wrote in
:

I think what you need is a "Super VGA" driver. /Maybe/ XVGA. I
imagine they're all over the place.


I found what look like VESA based hacks on SVGA drivers, but nothing olid or
conclusive. Far from off-the-shelf items. But I WOULD settle for a generic
XVGA if there is one.

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

thanatoid wrote in
:

I think what you need is a "Super VGA" driver. /Maybe/
XVGA. I imagine they're all over the place.


I found what look like VESA based hacks on SVGA drivers,
but nothing olid or conclusive. Far from off-the-shelf
items. But I WOULD settle for a generic XVGA if there is
one.

It appears there isn't, but maybe these can help:

http://www.drivermuseum.com/files/drivers/vga_d.html

http://www.driverfiles.net/Video-Ada...evel1,ID5.html

I've been meaning to ask, WHAT exactly are you up to? Are you
trying to write an all-compatible all-functional custom mini-
version of 98 or something? VERY mysterious.

thanatoid wrote in
:

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

thanatoid wrote in
:

I think what you need is a "Super VGA" driver. /Maybe/
XVGA. I imagine they're all over the place.


I found what look like VESA based hacks on SVGA drivers,
but nothing olid or conclusive. Far from off-the-shelf
items. But I WOULD settle for a generic XVGA if there is
one.

It appears there isn't, but maybe these can help:

http://www.drivermuseum.com/files/drivers/vga_d.html

http://www.driverfiles.net/Video-Ada...evel1,ID5.html

I've been meaning to ask, WHAT exactly are you up to? Are you
trying to write an all-compatible all-functional custom mini-
version of 98 or something? VERY mysterious.


Thanks, I'll check those out.

Re all-doing W98, it could never be all of those things, but I'm seeing how
close it can get. It seems that a core of about 10.5MB installed is enough to
give a desktop with full Explorer function, properties dialogs, a single
control panel applet for time setting, and to run basic programs that are
written in C, like MetaPad, NotePad, Windows Calculator, Regedit, etc. I have
the commandline console and all its associated PIF file stuff correctly added
too, so if all you want is file handling and data processing, just add any
runtime library th eprogram wants, and it's good to go. This is obviously
perfect for a machine that needs to be ultra-stable during huge movie encodes
with the likes of Mencoder invoked by batch files. You could set up a run
that took weeks on this thing, leave it to it with some kind of alert set to
call you whan it's done.


Adding graphics is what I want next, and network, the idea being to make them
modular addons. A bit like an OpenBSD install, secure by default, so we only
add what we need.

Understanding the stuff needed to have W98 find hardware and install drivers
might be beyond me. I have some of it, Regsvr32 works (not in my core now, it
will be part of an addon), and INF file installing also works, (again in an
intended addon, designed to allow OS-assisted installs of stuff). The base
install only allows purely manual installs of basic processes. But I'll try
to get the hardware bit sorted because otherwise its use isn't much more than
a glorified rescue disk. I bet some of those do more than I know how to do
yet too... Like minimal TCP based network on ethernet. I suspect that might
be easier to solve than the graphics thing.