Re: [9fans] What a poor VGA support !

[Agnelo de la Crotche <agnelo.geo@yahoo.com>]

Digby Tarvin wrote:

> > Sorry folks, but I'm in a particularly pedantic mood this morning ...
> >
> > > 6 DOSez : MS-DOS, PC DOS, Open DOS, DR DOS, PTS DOS, FreeDOS
> >
> > None of these have VGA support. They use the BIOS to write to the
> > screen as if it was a 24x80 tty.
> >
> > > 6 Windozes : 95, 98 , ME, NT, 2K, XP
> >
> > Make that two Windows: 95 and NT. The others are just different
> > releases of 95/NT.
>
> I'd also disqualify any Microsoft operating system from such comparison
> on the basis that hardware support is invariably supplied by the
> hardwave vendor, and no alternative OS vendor can hope to compete
> with that sort of monopoly advantage...
>
> Unix/Linux and other system that use XFree86 has a much larger developer
> base, and so is bound to have better hardware support.
>
> The remaining systems in you list make more interesting comparisons, and
> I would be interested in seeing any 'supported hardware' lists for them.
> How many of them provide source code for the drivers?
>

That OS listing was just an answer to the question 'what Os and how I boot them'.

Speaking of VGA support wasn't right and not really what I meant, allthough most
of them have graphic mode capabilities (directly or indirectly).
But all these OS have ( at least im my own experience ) something in common,
that I didn't find in Plan9 : I was able to install them !
Either they provide a graphic mode installation, which recognized and supported
my hardware or they are console oriented and don't care about the graphic card,
at least during the installation process.
I managed to install Plan9 too, but after having spent a lots of time and finally

broken a monitor. The worse is that before you can figure out  how to edit
Plan9.ini
to boot Plan9 in console mode, you have to get it installed.
I believe that the first choice should be given to a console mode installation.
The
setup could later switch to graphic mode if it detects a supported chipset ( but
remember : the problem with some ATI chipsets is that they are more or less
correctly identified but still unsupported, which has unpredictable (or rather
predictable) effects.

The best example of friendly compatible OS I can think is AtheOS.  I is
intended to be a graphic mode only operating system.  So it runs its
installation in a reasonnable GUI. It provides a S3 driver and tries to
initialize a S3
graphic card.  In fact, it scans the video adapters according to the drivers
present
in the video drivers directory.
I found a Mach64 driver + sources (http://www.kamidake.org). But I didn't need it

for the installation.

Another pleasant  one is Oberon, (http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/native/), which has
VGA,
Vesa and some drivers. Sources for the OS are available ( I don't know for the
drivers, but why not?)

Beos is dead and it's a bummer ! It used to have a pretty wide hardware support.

Amoeba and Hurd have ports of XFree86 I haven't tested yet..

I don't think that the QNX sources are available and you would probably say that
it's just
another Unix.  However hardware support is great.


> For Plan9 it is probably a better use of resources to have well developed
> drivers for products from the few responsible hardware vendors
> that see fit to adequately document the interface to their hardware,
> especially as that usually selects for the better quality hardware
> in any case. So long as this is able to encompass a range that includes
> some examples of high end capabilities, and some that are low cost, so that
> buying Plan9 capable hardware doesn't involve having to compromise too
> much.
>

Are people involved in OS projects in such a concurrence like hardware
manufacturers ?
If not they should establish a new standard, so that hardware products would
simply become usefull and the label "requires Microsoft Windows" would
disappear. It's an utopia, I know.


>
> What we really need is some sort of industry acreditation that can
> be awarded to manufacturers of non-Microsft specific hardware, so
> that people who want a choice can avoid winding up with a lemon
> without needing to carry around a long list of supported hardware
> for every OS they may ever want to run - as well as providing an
> incentive for manufacturers to play the game. I don't mind so much if my
> hardware is not currently supported - it is when it *can't* be
> supported that annoys me...
>

Iike the damned winmodems !

>
> Unix support is often a good sign, but I know of some cases where
> drivers are provided by manufacturers, or under a NDA, such that
> source is not available, or where drivers have had to be reverse
> engineered and developed in spite of the manufacturer...
>
> Unfortunately I suspect the vast majority of the market will have
> already bought hardware 'bundles' before realising there is a problem,
> making intelligent hardware selection no longer an option,
> and as a result will be stuck with Windows...
>
> Regards,
> DigbyT
> --
> Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
> http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk