Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsb!garfinke
From: garfinke@hplabsb.UUCP (Dan Garfinkel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Re: save-unders etc
Message-ID: <70700002@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Nov-87 10:54:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.70700002
Posted: Thu Nov 12 10:54:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Nov-87 18:41:52 EST
References: <10804.8711111536@vd.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories - Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 15

>                       Also note that if all windows are retained,
> saving only the obscured regions (as on the BLIT)
> saves *at most* one screenful of memory compared to saving whole windows.

I may be missing something or have a different meaning to retaining only
obscured regions, but how can this be true.  Suppose you have 3 window,
one at (0,0) with a size of (w-2, h-2), another at (1,1) size (w-2, h-2),
and the third at (3,3) size (w-2, h-2), where the physical screen is (w,h).  
The obscured parts of window two is from (1,1) size (w-3, h-3), and window
three's obscured parts is from (1,1) size (w-3, h-3).  As you can see,
you need to save almost *twice* the screen size in this simple case of
only three windows.  I think one could say that the most one would have to
save is (windows-1) * (sccreen_size) amount of memory.

Dan Garfinkel - HP