Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!easy!lron From: lron@easy.HIAM (Dwight Hubbard) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: Bank switched CHIP RAM? (Re: 24 Bit Video ..) Message-ID: Date: 9 Oct 90 06:56:05 GMT References: <1990Sep28.022138.19237@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1990Sep30.233751.3244@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Oct3.194556.7031@lth.se> <106878@convex.convex.com> <1990Oct8.211957.2528@lth.se> Lines: 38 [stuff deleted] > >think a more 'device' oriented solution is better - you send commands >to a video device and get results on the screen - this enables all >types of implementations. As it is now (and the line of thought of >most people) all video adapters have to positively rape the machine to >be both compatible and able to meet say 1280 x 1024 x 8 bandwidth. Yes, it would also make the system more flexible since it would be possible to send commands to the device directly. Can you see drawing a picture on the screen by typing: copy xxxpic to gfx: It would also open up the possiblity of taking commands for the graphics device from another device and piping them to the local graphics device (It would be nice to run Amiga apps on one machine and have the window for it on another) It would seem to me that a graphics device could be built on top of the current graphics library. And while I'm talking about a graphics device, why not an Intution device as well... >Building something to be locked into the existing structure is an >indication of regression in development d;^). We already have all Yes, staying locked into an outdated hardware structure is the primary reason messydos machines are so difficult to use. >Apart from being a way to control pee wee's do-it-yourself >megapixeldisplay, it would be a way to control other types of raster >displays like printers and so on... Yes, and how about any PC graphics board in one of the PC slots for those bridgeboard owners. > [removed old footers] -- -Dwight Hubbard, |-Kaneohe, HI -USENET: uunet.uu.net!easy!lron |-Genie: D.Hubbard1 lron@easy.hiam |-GT-Power: 029/004