Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!BillW@su-score.arpa
From: BillW@su-score.arpa (William Chops Westfield)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Re: What is \\"bitblt\\" ?
Message-ID: <1427@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 21:37:54 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1427
Posted: Thu Jan  9 21:37:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 04:41:13 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 14

You, or perhaps the original poster if the bitblt explanation
that started this discussion, seem to be missing a major point:
Not all of the "images" that are the operands of the bitblt
operation need to be the size of the full display bitmap.
Typically, one operand is a 16 bit square bitmap containing
a character, one is a similarly sized mask, and the remaining
operands are the screen itself (a full 1000 x 1000 or so bit map).
thus there is no reason to need to use virtual memory, and a lot
of the original arguments on why bitblt was "on its way out"
become invalid.  bitblt remains the fastest way to put character
or bit array data into a screen bitmap, no matter what the
screen resolution.

BillW