Re: Boot Logo Questions....

Robert Minichino (
Fri, 15 May 1998 00:12:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 15 May 1998, Riley Williams wrote:

> Hi Phil.
> >> I'd prefer this order since there are going to be the unforseen
> >> times when the card may be capable of it but the monitor isn't.
> >> If we default to plain vanilla text mode and do everything else as
> >> an option, the suprises will be minimised.
> I hope you don't mind my mentioning it, but 640x480 is the standard
> VGA resolution that is supported by ALL monitors capable of being
> connected to a VGA or SVGA or better video card, and from the
> monitor's point of view, the colour depth is irrelevant since all it
> will see is an ANALOGUE signal level for each of the RGB guns, with
> the level varying across the same voltage range...

Not necc., see below; the resolution isn't the only limitation.

> For this reason, I have to disagree with your preference in this
> respect, so I've returned the text mode to its original position at
> the bottom of the list, as per my first message...and here I analyse
> the various modes selected and explain the reason for their choice:
> A. The first three options select the VGA 640x480 resolution at the
> highest colour depth supported by the video card, assuming the
> card is an SVGA or better card since none of these modes are
> available on a standard VGA card due to the colour depth.

The monitor might not support it (see below).

> D. Option 6 is the EGA LOW resolution mode, and is available on all
> systems (to date anyway) with EGA or better graphics adapters. I
> deliberately omitted the EGA high resolution mode since several
> people I know (including myself) have used systems with EGA cards
> and CGA monitors that could not handle the high resolution mode.

Do we really want a 320x200x16 boot logo? A prettied-up text mode would
be MUCH better. Text mode in itself isn't scary ;)

> E. If we get to choose option 7, the choice basically lies between a
> CGA card, a Hercules MonoGraphics card, or some oddball graphics
> card which probably has a specialist monitor attached to it, so
> we use whatever graphics mode we can find.

I disagree -- if there's an oddball configuration, just go to text mode,
it doesn't hurt. I'm all for nuking option 7.

> Note also that there should be a means of saying "Display a MONO boot
> logo" for use when a mono monitor is attached to the video system...
> >> 1. Can the video card support 640x480x16M? If so, use it.
> >> 2. Can the video card support 640x480x64K? If so, use it.
> >> 3. Can the video card support 640x480x256? If so, use it.
> >> 4. Can the video card support 320x200x256? If so, use it.
> >> 5. Can the video card support 640x480x16? If so, use it.
> >> 6. Can the video card support 320x200x16? If so, use it.
> >> 7. Does the card support graphics? If so, use the lowest mode it
> >> supports.
> >> 8. Use a text only mode.
> > Okay, first off. My stand is that we keep it as an OPTION.

> > Second, this is the BEST way to scan it, IMO. There are VERY few
> > monitors that can't do 640x480x256.
> Since 640x480 is the standard VGA resolution, any monitor that can
> handle standard VGA can handle it at ANY colour depth (simply because
> VGA is an ANALOGUE mode)...

Unfortunately, this isn't entirely true; a 640x480 fixed-frequency monitor
cannot display 640x480x16M on older SVGA graphics cards that can't support
refreshing 640x480x16M at 60Hz. So they refresh slower. Monitor shows
weird colours and lines :)

> > And I don't know many people using a 14" VGA on a S3 ViRGE/DX. :)
> I'm using a 14" monitor with a 4M S3 ViRGE/DX video card, and have no
> problems displaying graphics all the way from 320x200x16 up to
> 1024x768x16M, so can't see that combination causing any problems with
> the above sequence...

By VGA I'd assume fixed-frequency VGA. Anything else is SVGA, XGA, XGA-2,
ad infinitum ;)

- Robert Minichino

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to