Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Sw vs. Hw BitBlit.
Keywords: BitBlit.
Message-ID: <5057@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 2 Aug 88 05:30:11 GMT
References: <399@ma.diab.se> <1313@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <61783@sun.uucp> <1315@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <62296@sun.uucp>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 24
Distribution:
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To:
Followup-To:

In message <62296@sun.uucp>, guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) says:
$Sorry, but Pike and company, at least, have demonstrated some level of
$expertise in the matter of making bit-mapped display hardware and software.  As
$such, appealing to their authority is not without merit.
$
$$ Never mind, I suppose, that this is 3 1/2 years after publication
$$ of the above and who knows how long before that it was written.
$$ A few things have happened in this business since then.
$
$ In other words, the common types of bitblt operations have changed since then?

 No, but the common types of CPU RAM have :-). For example, the slowest
 256K DRAM's that I've seen are 150ns, while I remember the "good old
 days" of 64K DRAM's, where 250ns was fast.... I won't bother you
 further by going taking the Wayback machine back to the late 70's,
 when 16K DRAMs were lucky to keep up with a 6502.

 What made sense for a 8mhz 68000 in 1980 did not necessarily make
sense 4 years later for that same 8mhz 68000.....

 --
Eric Lee Green    ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg
          Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509              
       MISFORTUNE, n. The kind of fortune that never misses.