Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!kunivv1!hobbit!ge
From: ge@hobbit.sci.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Self-modifying code (and bitblt)
Message-ID: <306@hobbit.sci.kun.nl>
Date: 27 Jul 88 09:23:47 GMT
References: <1988Jul26.022555.28494@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lines: 26

From article <1988Jul26.022555.28494@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
) In article <4894@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.UUCP writes:
)>However, I still would not want to use a plain old 68000 machine which
)>had to use a software loop to scroll a 32K bitmap.... I've seen Macs
)>and ST's... the speed of window management and scrolling simply cannot 
)>compare...
) 
) 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.  I said
) Commodore didn't know how to write a fast software implementation; I
) didn't mean to imply that Atari or Apple did better!  One *can* do faster
) BitBlt than the Blit does, given enough added hardware, but I really doubt
) the cost-effectiveness.

If you ever get a chance to see the programmers editor Tempus for the
Atari ST: it scrolls *FAST*, a factor 10 better than most programs.
In fact it is so fast the speed almost useless.
The authors stated in an interview that they'd rather not have to
do the programming again. The advantage of the Amiga is that most
reasonably well written programs have fast scrolling without having to
reinvent the wheel.


-- 
Ge' Weijers, Informatics dept., Nijmegen University, the Netherlands
UUCP: {uunet!,}mcvax!kunivv1!hobbit!ge