Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!uupsi!grebyn!ckp
From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: UNIX sys V4.0
Message-ID: <22912@grebyn.com>
Date: 30 Oct 90 16:57:46 GMT
References: <9010025@hpfcso.HP.COM> <15404@cbmvax.commodore.com> <16001@hydra.gatech.EDU> <15464@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA
Lines: 24

In article <15464@cbmvax.commodore.com> ag@cbmvax.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes:
>In article <16001@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
>writes:
>>In article <15404@cbmvax.commodore.com> ag@cbmvax.commodore.com
>(Keith Gabryelski) writes:
>>>The blitter is not used for X.
>>
>>You have hardware bitblt and don't use it for X?  Why not?
>
>It was determined that the 030 can do the bitblts much faster.

But the 030 plus the blitter is able to do bitblits plus run
applications faster than the 030 alone. This is the reason to
have a graphics co-processor, so that your applications get more CPU
because the CPU is spending fewer cycles doing graphics.

Now if you tell me that the 030 alone *can* run applications and do
graphics faster than the 030 plus the blitter, well then I won't believe
you...
-- 
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T  T E C H N O L O G I E S      / /  
                                                                    \\ / /    
Then, the disclaimer:  All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \  / o
Now for the witty part:    I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam!             \/