4 ms·
> It's compatible with 8088 (the original IBM PC). So you now have to look for a 8-bit compatible VGA card if you want to run it in original hardware ;) I'd be
by SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
> It's compatible with 8088 (the original IBM PC). So you now have to look for a 8-bit compatible VGA card if you want to run it in original hardware ;)
I'd be interested in the thoughts behind this decision. CGA would have been more period correct and more compatible with the "real" hardware that's out there (I say this as an IBM 5150 owner). Not wanting to criticise the author of course - this is still a very cool project and, being open source, I'm sure we'll see new variations popping up before too long. I might even have a go myself.
- einr 7y agoThe CGA 320x200 graphics mode is horrible to program for and would have made a 512 byte implementation much harder to accomplish. Even and odd rows of pixels on screen are separated in memory by 8k bytes, for instance. VGA mode 0x13, on the other hand, is widely known as the easiest graphics mode to program for -- all you do is throw bytes one after the other into 0x8000 + 64K and you're immediately putting 256-color graphics on the screen. 8-bit compatible VGA cards are somewhat of a rarity to find nowadays but it wasn't entirely uncommon to see 8088 or 8086 systems paired with VGA cards in the late 80's, although generally they were more common and useful with a 286 and up.