Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!rutgers!mcnc!thorin!cezanne!leech
From: leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: immediate mode graphics versus display-list graphics
Message-ID: <16490@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 90 14:52:52 GMT
References: <1990Sep30.060606.213@morrow.stanford.edu> <16414@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1990Oct2.173140.7728@alias.uucp>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech)
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 10

In article <1990Oct2.173140.7728@alias.uucp>, mherman@alias.UUCP
(Michael Herman) writes:
|>I think another increasingly important issue will be whether the display
|>surface and display generation hardware are local to the host machine or
|>remote (networked) to it.  In some cases, these will be separable issues.
   
    Definitely. The Pixel-Planes 5 graphics multicomputer developed here
is currently running off a Sun-4 over VME. The non-VonNeumann bottleneck thus
created severely limits what we can do. It should help a lot when we move to
a DEC host with TURBOchannel.