Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!lobster!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT/Amiga Flamage: Get a life. Message-ID: <1991Apr5.122457.9102@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 5 Apr 91 12:24:57 GMT References: <1991Apr3.112104.6657@infonode.ingr.com> <1991Apr4.004937.10202@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 14 In article <1991Apr4.004937.10202@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > You are right. 1.3 doesn't look so hot. 2.0 does. Under > 2.0 you can tell it to make the screen any size up to 32Kx32K, > depending on available chip ram, and your window can be on-screen > and off screen into that extra space. Of course you can do the same thing on 1.3, with several PD programs. It is *not* the same thing as the NeXT, Mac, X, etc do... and this ticks me off, too. There's no reason CBM couldn't have put real off-screen windows in 2.0 instead of this extended display area kludge. The techniques are the same as for obscured windows, and the memory use is way less. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .