Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sw vs. Hw BitBlit.
Message-ID: <1988Aug3.153415.9033@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <399@ma.diab.se> <1313@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <61783@sun.uucp> <1315@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <62296@sun.uucp> <4409@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 15:34:15 GMT

In article <4409@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>	...  Pike et al were only looking at blitters used for text-
>oriented terminals that also had graphics capabilities.

I would conjecture -- note that this is only a conjecture -- that even
the highly graphics-oriented machines spend far more time displaying plain
old text than most people think.  I'd love to see numbers on this; does
anybody have some?
-- 
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu