RE PC graphics standards

[Peter Nelson]

 Peter Nelson writes...

>   Anyway, given that they can't, what are some alternatives?  Does
>   anyone know any good implementations of PHIGS, HOOPS, or GKS with
>   a C binding for PC's?  What are some other approaches to writing 
>   compiler- and device- independent graphics code for PC's?   

   There are a number of 3rd party graphics products which extend,
   somewhat, the graphics capabilities of the Zortech or other 
   similar compilers' graphics libraries.  I called Metagraphics,
   which was recommended by Zortech.  They have a Window Plus 
   product (no relation to uSoft Windows) which provides a set
   of graphics primitives, not terribly unlike the primitives
   already offered by Zortech, but with a few additional primitives
   and more extensive text capabilities (extra stroke fonts, etc),
   AND 256 colors.  But they cost $325!!    For that price I would
   have expected more: support for some standard graphics file 
   output (.pxc, etc) or maybe parametric curves or 3D transforms.
   It's a lot of money just to get the colors.

   Another product is PCX Programmer's Toolkit.   As the name
   suggests, they support .pcx file format output.  They also 
   support 256 colors.  They do NOT currently have any graphics
   drawing primitives, although they expect this to change by
   summer.

   Another company I called was CSource.  They expect to have 
   256 color support at the end of spring for their GFX product.  

   So it's slim pickin's.   I called ATI, the maker of the board
   in my computer to get their perspective.  They had no additional
   names except Halo, which is just a paint program and has no
   API or C binding, according to them.  They said that the
   problem is that there is no standard for 256 colors at or
   above 640X480 resolution.

   ( people often complain when one entity, like Apple, Microsoft, 
    or IBM tries to impose IT'S standard on the world.  The hi-res
    VGA graphics mess provides a counterpoint to this.  )  

   I'm extraordinarily busy but at the moment my temptation is 
   to consider writing my own.  The graphics part would be easy
   but I have little familiarity with DOS.  I'd want to be especially
   careful to be consistent with MS's coding guidelines for version
   4, even though I only have MSDOS3.3, because I understand that
   version 4 is very stringent and this is why there have been so 
   many problems with old applications running under 4.0 and 4.01. 
   And, of course, writing my own would not solve the portability
   problem.

                                               ---Peter
  

   PS
      " The nice thing about standards is that there are so MANY of them "