Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aries!mcdonald From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Intel graphics chip Keywords: Intel, 586, windows Message-ID: <1990Dec19.154145.10137@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 19 Dec 90 15:41:45 GMT References: <1990Dec19.052844.4083@kithrup.COM> <1990Dec19.115110.15070@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3070@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: School of Chemical Sciences, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Lines: 25 In article <3070@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1990Dec19.115110.15070@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: > >| After all this time, >| I had figured the chip had never come out, but then I saw an ad for a >| terminal using it, a few weeks ago. best - kev > > I thought the chip was dead, too. Someone contacted me looking for a >job about a year ago, saying that their company had bet on the Intel vs. >TI for a board, and Intel had decided not to make it. > > Can someone shed light on this? Was the chip cancelled and then >reinstated, or what? >-- I may be -- probably am -- all wet, but I thought that the Intel and TI graphics chips were enitrely different bests: the TI chip was a programmable device for drawing graphics primitives onto a frame bufffer while the Intel one was, as has been described earlier in this thread, a device for manipulating "windows" from asveral parts of a frame buffer onto an actual screen. Anybody really know? Can you layer one onto the other? Doug McDonald