Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request
From: foo@rice.edu (Mark Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: Re: Graphics Processor and Frame Buffers
Keywords: Hardware
Message-ID: <3162@kalliope.rice.edu>
Date: 5 May 89 08:00:55 GMT
References: <8903162223.AA02465@rutgers.edu> <3886@pixar.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 31
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
Original-Date: 25 Apr 89 14:18:48 GMT
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 266, message 4 of 17

pixar!pixar!mccoy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Daniel McCoy) writes:
>lecgwy!mdlrth.dnet!coco@rutgers.edu (Joe X3238) writes:
>>I have a 3/260 CXP with a GP2 graphics processor.  I don't know much about
>>the GP2 and I will need to start using it soon.  There are a few things I
>>don't understand :
>>
>>   GP2 using either GPSI or the Viewport Package would be appreciated. 
>
>Avoid the Viewport Package.  Period.  The DEV_GP1 package is easier to
>deal with.  Using GPSI directly is doable, but if you do, plan to spend
>some time debugging buffer stuffing code.  DEV_GP1 will save you from the
>most of the headaches.
>
>	Dan McCoy 

The problem with DEV_GP1 package is that IT IS UNSUPPORTED.  I had many
headaches with it a year ago. It had a bug where occasionally (in my case,
every time I was running a demo) hang up, pegging the CPU. Of course, no
one at SUN would look into it. Eventually, the 4.0 version came out and
the lockup problem seems to have been solved. Perhaps that was the last
bug :^)

Why would a vendor make hardware where you have to use an unsupported
package to get the speed out of it? At the time, CORE was the only
supported package for the GPs. For these reasons, I have been telling
graphics people to avoid SUN hardware. 

Are the newer Graphics Accelerators accessible at lower (read FAST)
levels? Or do you have to use PHIGS to use the power of the accelerator?

 - mark