From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Mon,  9 Oct 2000 09:04:49 +0000
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <39E03534.C59BD2D2@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20001004130747.03BC6199CF@mail>, <20001005110053.C19576@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Are nvidia-cards working with plan9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 15d4247a-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Lucio De Re wrote:
> It still baffles me why nobody has produced a graphic card that
> speaks a sensible protocol instead of being variously I/O and memory
> mapped in the most unorthodox manners.

A "sensible protocol" would be a flat frame buffer with
a single color depth.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of
today's customers for add-in video cards want the fastest,
most featureful 3D rendering engines.  Presumably many of
the details of the 2D interface are dictated by the needs
of the 3D design, including the bus cache.  Of course, the
"standard" VGA/SVGA modes that evolved step by step from
the original IBM VGA over the years must still be supported
for such things as Windows "Safe Mode".

> For that matter, why on earth did the mouse controller migrate
> to the keyboard handler, when I have yet to see a single PC
> clone with a video card that did not need a mouse?

The mouse was never (on the PC platform) closely coupled
with the display.  Typical PCs do not "need" a mouse, but
it is more tedious to navigate in Windows via the keyboard.

> The Ontel Amigo ... is it too late for that type of sensible
> engineering to happen again?

It really doesn't seem that such a design would be competitive
today.

> The other question, unfortunately, is whether there is any room
> for the double Steves of the world, I mean, garage engineering
> making it big?

I think you left out a "b".