Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!travis!hardy!leoh
From: leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Which graphics-adapter is best?`
Message-ID: <1525@travis.csd.harris.com>
Date: 14 Nov 90 23:31:58 GMT
References: <90315.094056MUHRTH@DB0TUI11.BITNET> <1511@frapper.nsc.com> <1990Nov14.030313.16366@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <1519@berlioz.nsc.com> <5783@hsv3.UUCP>
Sender: news@travis.csd.harris.com
Reply-To: leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds)
Distribution: na
Organization: Harris Computer Systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 15

In article <5783@hsv3.UUCP> jls@hsv3.UUCP (James Seidman) writes:

>How much of the work the host CPU does depends on how the display driver
>is written.  There is a great deal of opportunity in the driver to
>offload work to a TMS34010  <text deleted>

Which brings up the obvious question ... which cards, if any, are "optimized" 
for Win3 ... I assume that by that I mean that the card implements most/all 
the Win3 specific functions, so that the driver is in effect doing nothing but 
passing the stuff to the card ...


leoh@hdw.csd.harris.com         	Leo Hinds       	(305)973-5229
Gfx ... gfx ... :-) whfg orpnhfr V "ebg"grq zl fvtangher svyr lbh guvax V nz n
creireg ?!!!!!!? ... znlor arkg gvzr