home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
- From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Chunky Pixels vs. Bitplanes (was: Chunky Chip Set...)
- References: <1992Dec30.115759.22097@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> <paulk.30qj@terapin.com>
- Message-ID: <jbickers.0mdh@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
- Date: 1 Jan 93 17:07:11 PST
- Organization: TAP
- Lines: 27
-
- Quoted from <paulk.30qj@terapin.com> by paulk@terapin.com (Paul Kienitz):
-
- > One can only get the full advantage of chunky display if you either
- > access your (for example) 32 bit memory with 8 bit reads and writes,
-
- Cases where you handle 4 chunky pixels at a time by reading and
- writing 32-bits are still easier and quicker to code for than
- handling bitplanes a word or long at a time.
-
- > So: chunky is way better than planar with no disadvantages, if you are
- > building a display for an 8088 system, or if you are an ant or red-green
- > colorblind or otherwise have a power-of-two number of primary colors
- > in your eyeball.
-
- Perhaps you could divert your energies to showing how planar
- displays compete with the specific examples that people have
- mentioned already?
-
- One thing that is becoming noticeable here is that a couple of the
- people who are trying to say that chunky pixels are not better
- than planes for the given operations were _also_ involved in the
- hardware manual thread, on the side of those who don't care about
- hitting the hardware directly. In my view, they're blowing their
- credibility with this stuff about planes.
- --
- *** John Bickers, TAP. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
- *** "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk ***
-