ATI Small Wonder Graphics Solution v1

[vwestlife]

And here's my elaborate version, supporting loading fonts from files and unloading the TSR on request. It comes preloaded with the font from FreeGEM rather than the IBM ROM BIOS, because that was what I happened to have to hand (and I think it's a nicer font )

Here's what I get with CGAGFONT loaded. The font in graphics mode is better, but still not correct. I'll have to do some swapping around with the IBM CGA board in my 5150 to see if this happens will all CGA cards in my Packard Bell, or just the ATI.

 

[JohnElliott]

Here's what I get with CGAGFONT loaded. The font in graphics mode is better, but still not correct. I'll have to do some swapping around with the IBM CGA board in my 5150 to see if this happens will all CGA cards in my Packard Bell, or just the ATI.

If you really want the IBM 8x8 font, try loading this with CGAGFONT (ie, CGAGFONT EGA8.PSF).

 

[per]

Or, simply use one of the* original IBM CGA fonts (they differ sligthly from the IBM EGA version).

* It turns out that the original CGA font even varies sligthly within IBM's products. You have two 8x8 fonts within the ROM on the CGA card itself, one thick and one thin, then you got the first half of a third font stored within the BIOS, and the different second halfs of the third font that comes with the DOS utility "graftabl.com". The different versions are based on different regions, like Nordic (where the characters of "ø" and "Ø" has been added). there are in fact regional differences within the ROMs on the CGA cards too, but only the US one has been dumped.

 

[FishFinger]

Are the 132-column text modes supposed to look so awful?

Trying out these modes in the test program gives what looks like very narrow characters all squashed together and that overlap each other - completely unreadable.

 

[vwestlife]

Are the 132-column text modes supposed to look so awful?

Trying out these modes in the test program gives what looks like very narrow characters all squashed together and that overlap each other - completely unreadable.

Yes, it doesn't look too great for me, either... but considering the limited resolution and bandwidth of CGA, it's about the best they could do... they're probably doing 5 pixels of width for each character, for 660 pixels across (vs. 8 pixels and 640 across, as normal for CGA 80x25 text).

 

[per]

Yes, it doesn't look too great for me, either... but considering the limited resolution and bandwidth of CGA, it's about the best they could do... they're probably doing 5 pixels of width for each character, for 660 pixels across (vs. 8 pixels and 640 across, as normal for CGA 80x25 text).

I really do recomend an IBM 5151 for the 132 character textmodes. Then the characters doesn't overlap, at least. However, a magnifying glass would come in handy for the 132*44 textmode.

 

[vwestlife]

My one disappointment with this card (or any other CGA-type card for that matter) is that it doesn't expand the text mode character cell to 9 vertical pixels, like Tandy's enhanced CGA does, to create some space between the lines of text. It really makes an improvement in readability when you don't have the tops and bottoms of the characters crammed right up against each other, so that the bottoms of g's are running into the tops of T's on the line below, for example.