Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsb!garfinke
From: garfinke@hplabsb.UUCP (Dan Garfinkel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Re: save-unders etc
Message-ID: <70700003@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Nov-87 10:54:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.70700003
Posted: Thu Nov 12 10:54:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Nov-87 15:23:57 EST
References: <10804.8711111536@vd.rl.ac.uk>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories - Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 18

>     > 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.

I guess I was missing something!  I read the original response to mean
you need only one screenful of memory if you were only saving obscured
regions.  Too many "saves" can get confusing...

-Dan