SD> It should work OK (Warp was able to install a 256 color driver for my
 SD> old ATI VGA Wonder with 512K), but you should consider a 1 or 2 meg
 SD> video card for the system you have. I have rather slow screen refreshes
 SD> with my card, but I keep 256 colors because it is so much nicer than
 SD> 16 colors.

I am constantly hearing people refer to the speed of a video card by how
much RAM it has.  Someone correct if I'm wrong, but isn't this false?  The
amount of RAM on a video card controls only it's maximum resolution and
colour combinations; not how fast it updates the screen.

Granted, if you have a card with lots of memory, chances are it IS a fast
card already, but I always hear people say, "Oh, I'm going to put 2
megs of RAM on my video card so that DOOM will run faster,' which makes
ZERO sense to me.

I have an ATI GRAPHICS PRO TURBO (PCI) w/ 2megs of VRAM, and I get a
1024x768x65k desktop (at a _flicker_free_ 100Hz vertical refresh rate,
*nicely* done ATI).  Four megs of RAM would give me 16.7m colours (and at a
higher resolution, if I wanted that).  From what I can tell, the speed the
card draws at (ie. desktop re-paints) is controlled by how fast OS/2 can
update it -- which depends on the computer's RAM (ie. whether the desktop
must be pulled from SWAPPER.DAT or whether it's already in RAM), not the
video card's.

--- Maximus/2 3.00