Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!csun!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
Keywords: Intel, 586, windows
Message-ID: <1990Dec19.052844.4083@kithrup.COM>
Date: 19 Dec 90 05:28:44 GMT
References: <3042@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <450@lysator.liu.se> <1990Dec18.213506.645@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 23

In article <1990Dec18.213506.645@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:
>I believe the Intel 82786 gfx chip does have this support now. Each
>window is a different section of memory, and can be of virtually any
>mode... so for example, you could have a CGA-style window in the middle
>of a 1Kx1K display.

They should not go into CPU's (my opinion).

For example, I don't have a *GA on kithrup.  I have a cornerstone (early
model) with 1600x1200.  It doesn't look *anything* like a *GA (when in
graphics mode).  Having Intel put VGA onto the chip would mean that I would
not use it.

I'm not against having your hardware manage your graphics; I just don't want
my *cpu* to do that.  (See the SGI Graphics Board for a *good* example.
Also see the NS32GX16 for a good example of why *not* to put this stuff in
the CPU.)

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.