Mike Smith wrote:

> What resolution?  640 x 480 is *not* SVGA IMO.  Needs to be 800 x 600
> or 1024 x 768 to qualify.  If you've got a real, generic, SVGA, can
> you give more details?

  One of the definition problems with the PC; I was going to say "urban
legend"; rather like the existence of "Single Density" disks.

  It seems that to IBM, VGA meant 640 by 480 by 16 colours.  This was
uncritical on the VGA controller and card memory (the 16 colours each
had a{n 18-bit if I recall} RGB pallette value).  "SVGA" was taken to
mean that you actually had 256 colours on screen, but still 640 by 480.

  Other people, and quite rightly in general, take "SVGA" to mean
"better pixel resolution than VGA" as Mike mentions or refers to as
"Generic SVGA".  Of course, there are two aspects relating to monitors
as well, 1) can it accept the frequencies to operate in 800 by 600 or
even 1024 by 768 modes, and 2) has it sufficient colour triads on-screen
to show this number of pixels?  Does it matter?  I use a Morse "VGAplus"
monitor which appears to actually work (only under Win95) to 800 by 600
pixels so I use it in that mode, but it is a bit blurry.  I have to use
good fonts for serious typing and it might be a bit dicky for CAD.

  Cheers,
        Paul B.