Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!swbatl!jburnes
From: jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com (Jim Burnes - 235-7444)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga
Subject: Re: U Lowell board question (was Re: AMIGA 3000UX)
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.143831.21403@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: 24 Jun 91 14:38:31 GMT
References: <2732@amix.commodore.com>
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Lines: 30

ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes:
> saunders@triton.unm.edu (Richard Saunders CIRT) writes:
> > Just out of curiousity, why doesn't X under UNIX use the blitter?
> > It seems this would be a "selling point" for X/Unix on the Amiga
> > over the PC Unix boxes.  I mean, isn't this what the blitter chips
> > are for?  Speeding up window systems like X?
> 
> The answer is simply that the 68030 can do the job faster and better
> than the blitter chip.  You must remember the blitter chip was made to
> enahance a 7mhz 68000 with bus accesses of only 16bits wide.
> 

Geee...after running X on a an A3000 UXD anything would be an improvement
over the blit algorithms you guys have installed now.  Also I thought that
the point was that the CPU didnt have to do the screen management, leaving
it free to actually run programs.  I know X is a resource hog, but Amigados
/Intuition runs rings around it.  The other question is, of course, why
hasnt CBM stepped up the blitter performance to match the rest of the
system architecture.

BTW: Why doesnt somebody compile a virtual window manager for Amix.
With the seriously limited screen real-estate without the lowell card,
anything would be an improvement.

-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin          ! "The Nineties
SWBell Advanced Technology Labs    !    are gonna make the Sixties
(314) 235-7444                     !       look like the Fifties..."
jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com             !   Dennis Hopper in 'Flashback'
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------