Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Let's pretend
Keywords: Intel, 586, windows
Message-ID: <3066@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 19 Dec 90 14:53:49 GMT
References: <3042@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <450@lysator.liu.se> <5800@labtam.labtam.oz>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 20

In article <5800@labtam.labtam.oz> graeme@labtam.labtam.oz (Graeme Gill) writes:

|     The answer to this is the usual RISC vs CISC arguments. Why have very
| complicated hardware, that tends to be locked into a particular implementation
| of windowing etc. , when with a little bit of effort on the window library
| programmers part you can get the same performance with more general hardware

  When this lovely generalized system can perform at a reasonable rate,
then that's fine. Until then users will want hardware boost because it's
more pleasant to use, companies will want it because it's more
productive.

  A display system isn't fast enough until it has to be slowed down to
avoid overrunning the input bandwidth of the eye. Until then people will
want more, and today that means some hardware assists. In truth you
*can't* write software as fast as dedicated hardware, with any amount of
effort, much less "a little bit."
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
    VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.