Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!amix!ag
From: ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith "Cheese Whiz" Gabryelski)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga
Subject: Re: second thoughts on buying a 3000UX
Message-ID: <1230@amix.commodore.com>
Date: 4 Mar 91 20:36:05 GMT
References: <13376@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Reply-To: ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith "Cheese Whiz" Gabryelski)
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Unix Development
Lines: 27

In article <13376@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer)
writes:
>From daveh@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com Mon Feb 25 19:17:13 1991
>...
>run for the money.  Under UNIX, they use the 68030 alone for graphics
>manipulation.  They claim it's faster than the blitter for X windows,
>and it probably is, since X was designed with CPU access in mind.
>However, they originally chose to use the CPU because the old AMIX
>window manager claimed exclusive of the Amiga-specific features of
>the system, and therefore X could not use it.  That window manager is
>no longer a part of the system, but that was the original reason they
>went for CPU-only on the Amiga-resident UNIX X.

Dave is somewhat correct.  The (Rico) windowing system was never
actually used while X was in development.  Said windowing system was
not ported to SVR4 and so was not in the design decision of X itself.

A quick one bitplane port was the first task at hand; optimization was
second.  When optimization came around the blitter turned out to be the
wrong way to go (or atleast not the first way to go).

Pax, Keith

"Vitality Magazine is the Oracle of of all knowledge" -- David Ballman
-- 
Keith Gabryelski                                 Advanced Products Group
ag@amix.commodore.com                                 ...!cbmvax!amix!ag