Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!cae780!leadsv!laic!nova!darin
From: darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Self-modifying code (and bitblt)
Message-ID: <308@laic.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jul 88 17:14:34 GMT
References: <7439@ico.ISC.COM> <4894@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1988Jul26.022555.28494@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Lines: 14

In article <1988Jul26.022555.28494@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Have you tried a Blit (aka 5620, aka 630)?  That's a demonstration of
> what *can* be done with a plain old 68000 using software BitBlt.
> One *can* do faster
> BitBlt than the Blit does, given enough added hardware, but I really doubt
> the cost-effectiveness.

As I recall, the Blit (or 5620, ATT told me not to call it a blit), had
very nice speed.  However, it cost quite a lot of money ($8000?) so I wouldn't
really call it that cost effective (most of the price was probably
video and cpu though).

Darin Johnson (...pyramid.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin)
              (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin)
	"All aboard the DOOMED express!"