Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!agate!eris!doug
From: doug@eris (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Fixing flicker, & future frame rate issues
Message-ID: <8775@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 15 Apr 88 19:18:18 GMT
References: <11226@ut-sally.UUCP> <8691@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: doug@eris.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17


=-In article <11254@ut-sally.UUCP> bryan@mothra.cs.utexas.edu writes:
>  Now, is there still a problem when, as you said,
>you think of the display device as BEING your one and only memory?

Yes, that's the one that I can't see the archetectural subsystem
for. How could just this case (neglecting pixels vs. nonpixels) work
the way you specified? The reason I can't see it is that it seems
like all that happened is that the functionality that used to be
in the cpu box (like writing to RAM, then DMA'ing it to a memory
mapped display) simply got moved out into the display itself. Yet
I get the impression that that's not what you had in mind. But I
don't see any significantly different way of doing it inside the
display than without.

	Doug Merritt		doug@mica.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!mica!doug)
			or	ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug