Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games Subject: Re: IBM a great game machine Message-ID: <571@cbmger.UUCP> Date: 13 Nov 90 17:05:11 GMT References: <9240@aggie.ucdavis.edu> <11479@hubcap.clemson.edu> <45803@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany Lines: 18 In article tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes: > There are also games, which needs a fast mass memory (HD) >and much computing power (solid vector graphics). In these areas PC is better ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uh, oh, can't believ that, because I myself tried to create some area filling stuff on a PC. I was accustomned to the great Blitter support for area filling on the Amiga and found that I would have been forced to reengineer all this in assembly on a PC to get comparable results. And as I real HATE 80xxx assemblers, I drew back. There was said that you can get faster area filling on an Amiga without the Blitter when you have a faster processor and and a good algorithm that doesn't need to care for every worst case, but i don't know whether this is the same for a PC. So, regarding our Blitter lets ma hesitate to believe a PC being better for solid vector graphics. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk