Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!rjf001!hpftc!teemc!rphroy!edsews!uunet!lll-winken!ctrsol!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!ames!ncar!ico!ism780c!wilbur!jon
From: jon@wilbur.uucp (Jonathan Broome)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Bell Tech?
Message-ID: <1989Aug12.054147.7684@wilbur.uucp>
Date: 12 Aug 89 05:41:47 GMT
References: <4521@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <44@oink.UUCP> <1161@vsi.COM> <1156@mitisft.Convergent.COM>
Reply-To: jon@wilbur.UUCP (Jonathan Broome)
Organization: Wilbur's Bike Shop, Westlake Village, Ca
Lines: 24

In article <1156@mitisft.Convergent.COM> markb@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Mark Beyer) writes:
: My impression is that the BLIT works with nothing but the Bell Tech hardware 
: and with their Unix.  My hope is that Intel will try to get
: the BLIT to work with a wider range of systems.

I use the Blit in a Compaq 20e and a CSS Labs Magnum 25 every day.  I know
other people using Blits in ALRs, Compaq DeskPros, Zeniths, and yes, even Bell
Tech boxes.  We all use 386/ix and ISC's X11.

: Not wanting to wait for that, I gave up on the BLIT and went to a 
: comparably priced Sigma Designs LaserView, which came up in a few hours 
: and works just fine.  The BLIT is gathering dust under my desk.

The Blit performance is much better than the LaserView -- the Blit has a
processor that allows offloading some of graphics ops, while the Sigma is
essentially just a dumb frame buffer that has to bank switches its memory into
the host's address space and forces the CPU do ALL the work.  Using the
(admittedly simplistic) "benchmark" mentioned here a few months ago of using
"/bin/time cat /etc/termcap" (6x10 font, jump scroll off, 89000 bytes, Compaq
20MHz systems), the Blit takes just under one-third the time of the Sigma (34.5
seconds vs 1:46.2)  It might be worth dusting off that Blit.

  ---Jonathan Broome
  jon@wilbur.uucp