Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sw vs. Hw BitBlit.
Message-ID: <1988Aug1.061714.25907@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <399@ma.diab.se> <1313@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <61783@sun.uucp> <1315@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 06:17:14 GMT

In article <1315@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> root@cca.ucsf.edu (Computer Center) writes:
>For example, at last month's Usenix meeting Bell Technologies was
>showing their Intel 82786 (I hope I got the number right) video
>controller running smoothly scrolled text over 2/3 of a high-res
>screen while occupying the remainder with instant opening and closing
>overlapped windows. No jerks, no glitches, no skew were to be seen.
>
>It sure made the skew distorted scrolling of the corner cutting
>move-screen-bits-with-the-cpu systems look awful.

To quote someone whose name I can't recall :-), "another debater's
trick"!  This time, comparing tomorrow's system with yesterday's.
A 25 MHz AMD 29000 (note, not 2900) and a suitably cooperative memory
subsystem should be able to do a *software* BitBlt that would make
an Amiga look equally awful.  If you want to compare the latest hot
BitBlt chip, compare it against the latest hot CPU.
-- 
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu