Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
From: rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <1991Jun10.141520.24849@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 91 14:15:20 GMT
References: <35@ryptyde.UUCP> <1991Jun9.083656.8443@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <45@ryptyde.UUCP>
Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

In article <45@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes:
>Responding to the following:
>I didn't really get this. Is this supposed to be a bash against the Mac?
>What the heck is DIG? The Macintosh is NOT slowed down by its flexibility,
>it is speeded up by it. You'd know that if you read my post.

DIG=Device Independent Graphics.

  Sad to say, you don't know what you're talking about. An atomic
write in assembly to set a pixel will ALWAYS be faster than
an indirect subroutine. The Mac _is_ slowed down by device independence
why do you think all the games for it totally suck compared to
Amiga games which hit the hardware directory. I'm not saying
banging on thehardware is the best thing, I'm merely using this
to refute your incorrect statement that device independence speeds
up a graphics display. It can not speed up a display in a predictable
way. (e.g. on some machines with RISC coprocessors rendering
would be fast, however on not so fortunate machines it won't, hence
software is written for the lowest common denominator and in
the general Mac population (low-end machines) you lose performance)


--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu     *   // The opinions expressed here do not      \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net  | \X/  in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023        *                                              /