Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!swrinde!emory!hubcap!rick
From: rick@hanauma.Stanford.EDU (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Re: Visualization Machines
Keywords: visualization, machines, fast
Message-ID: <9816@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 90 15:47:29 GMT
References: <9811@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
Followup-To: comp.unix.cray
Organization: Stanford University, Department of Geophysics
Lines: 11
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu

In article <9811@hubcap.clemson.edu> malcolm@Apple.COM (Malcolm Slaney) writes:
>What are good machines for scientific visualizations? 
>Should I think about Convex?  What about the new Connection Machine?  Machines
>like the DAP and the MassPar seem to be too hard to program (I want to do
>new research in hearing, not algorithm development.)

No, Yes, ??, No.
The two no's do not have integrated frame buffers or very high speed interfaces
to frame buffers. The CM has one at the rate you specified.
The MasPar is only slightly harder to program than the CM.
Neither machine has made the layout of data in the memories fully transparent.