Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo
From: mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Blitter disappointment (was: Time to create comp.sys.atari.flames)
Summary: Usage
Message-ID: <2152@sactoh0.UUCP>
Date: 24 Nov 89 07:51:23 GMT
References: <1989Nov8.182505.11625@uunet!unhd> <23996@cup.portal.com> <5312@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Sacramento Public Access, Ca. USA
Lines: 28

In article <5312@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, pa1329@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa1329) writes:
> In article <1261@atha.AthabascaU.CA> rwa@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Ross Alexander) writes:
> >For what it's worth:  I have a blitter.  It's $75 down the toilet.
> >The speedup it provides is _very_ marginal ( < 25% ), and affects
> >only a few operations (essentailly, large blits).  QuikST and the
> >TOS 1.4 upgrade are much more cost effective.  When I get home
> >tonight I'll try to post some benchmark numbers.
> >	Ross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm,.  I wonder why is the Atari blitter so ineffective.  Its
> speed is no where comparable to the Amiga's blitter.   Why is the
> difference?

Well, what in the world is he using it for? What do you want? I
have a Mega4 and a 1040ST and I like the Blitter. "Compared to the
Amiga blitter", please explain. Do you have both set up next to
each other and running the same program?

-Shinobu

Sacramento, CA     pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo
        mmsac!sactoh0!mfolivo

"Issho kakete iwasete miseru-cha"
"Imawano kiwani itteyaru."