Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ll-xn!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!zeus!bobr
From: bobr@zeus.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Re: save-unders etc
Message-ID: <2716@zeus.TEK.COM>
Date: Thu, 19-Nov-87 17:19:16 EST
Article-I.D.: zeus.2716
Posted: Thu Nov 19 17:19:16 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 17:43:02 EST
References: <10804.8711111536@vd.rl.ac.uk> <70700002@hplabsb.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: CAE Systems Division, Tektronix Inc., Beaverton OR
Lines: 16

In article <70700002@hplabsb.UUCP> garfinke@hplabsb.UUCP (Dan Garfinkel) writes:

    > 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?

Just think about it.  By saving only the obscured portions, you are in
effect using the frame buffer as an alternate to memory for storing those
pixels.  You have only one screen, so the most savings you can expect over
saving entire windows is one screenful.  The question is not what the total
is, but what the difference is.
-- 
Robert Reed, Tektronix CAE Systems Division, bobr@zeus.TEK