8 ms·
I'm sure this is just arguing about definitions, but the Color Graphics Adapter (CGA)[1] was a graphics card. I don't know what else you could call it. [1] ht
by erik 9y ago
I'm sure this is just arguing about definitions, but the Color Graphics Adapter (CGA)[1] was a graphics card. I don't know what else you could call it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter
- mdorazio 9y agoOk, that's fair. The CGA is technically a graphics card. I personally don't consider the true graphics card era to have started until VGA became a thing in the late 1980s.
- rhizome 9y agoA simple way to think about it is that IBM-PC monochrome never had addressable pixels like Apple et al monochrome did.
- pdkl95 9y agoIBM's MDA cards didn't support direct pixel addressing, which is one of the reasons I had a Hercules Graphics Card (original from 1982). I spent way too much time trying to get various games to work with SIMCGA. Not only did it cause a massive slowdown (single-digit fps - or worse - was common) as it copied writes to VGA addresses into Hercules address space, the conversion from (e.g.) 320x200@16 onto a display that only supported 720x348@1 created usually required dropping/doubling lines at non-integer ratios, skewing the aspect ratio, and other nasty hacks[1]. I was very happy, years later, when I finally upgrade to a Trident TVGA9000B. [1] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-To4gB6TtJJs/Uwa-qlr0_rI/AAAAAAAAA9Y/XjMsZE95l6M/s1600/maniac_001.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-To4gB6TtJJs/Uwa-qlr0_rI/AAAAAAAAA9...
- taneq 9y agoI think the distinction you want is that CGA was a graphics card but later things that made graphics faster were graphics accelerators. These days a graphics output without at least some hardware acceleration is unthinkable.
- aidenn0 9y agoIIRC the MDA was on a multifunction card. My first PC clone was a 286 with an HGA though, so can't say for sure.