From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Apple-Mail-8--468100457" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: Anthony Sorace In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:19:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <431ADD84-7331-4455-BFB1-E34481315A75@9srv.net> References: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] xga or vesa? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 64f48632-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --Apple-Mail-8--468100457 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii They're different things. monitor=3Dvesa is "special" in that it tells = vga(8) to use the VESA bios calls; xga is just another monitor = definition and will try to go through a card-specific driver. All other = things being equal, non-vesa stuff will generally yield better = performance. Some of the drivers make use of various forms of = acceleration, all of which (afaik) are absent from VESA. On Oct 14, 2010, at 04:28, freeasinfreedom wrote: > What are the pros and cons of using xga versus using vesa? Which xga > version does actually plan9 support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Graphic_display_resolutions)? >=20 > In my case, both xga and vesa work, but when I tried to use xga with a > 24 bit depth I got an error. What I actually care about is to find out > which is the less harmful solution for my eyes. --Apple-Mail-8--468100457 content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig content-description: This is a digitally signed message part content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAky3O4gACgkQyrb52b5lrs4bsQCfbO6M2YM0t8dXdi3HmduFulMA P4kAn3RU0RO8IXnmPsILaTnaxnnfgJAy =L6VF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-8--468100457--