Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utah.edu!thomson
From: thomson@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: immediate mode graphics versus display-list graphics
Summary: Blatant Commercialism... I can't help it ;-}
Message-ID: <1990Oct2.223612.6478@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 90 04:36:12 GMT
References: <1990Sep30.060606.213@morrow.stanford.edu> <390050@hpfcdq.HP.COM>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 21

In article <390050@hpfcdq.HP.COM> shrum@hpfcdq.HP.COM (Ken Shrum) writes:
>HP's PHIGS PLUS product provides "full subsystem performance" - it
>renders as fast as the hardware can.

I can't resist-- E&S' ESV renders PEX (i.e. PHIGS/PHIGS+) as fast as
the hardware can. ;-}

Actually at SIGGRAPH, HP's booth (which I think had 18,000 watt
speakers ;-) was right next to ours and they were touting their
product as having the fastest X and the fastest PHIGS in X (not
the same thing as PEX, BTW).

Some people came up and asked me what I thought about this, seing as I
was a lowly luggage-tag maker at the booth.  I told them to go ``kick
the tires'' on each machine and decide for themselves which one was
the fastest.  After seeing their machine perform in some demos run by
their salesman, I wasn't too concerned about saying that.

						-- Rich
Rich Thomson	thomson@cs.utah.edu  {bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!thomson
``If everybody is thinking the same thing, is anybody thinking?'' --Bob Johnson