home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.graphics
- Path: sparky!uunet!infonode!bbrown
- From: bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
- Subject: Re: N bit planes/pixel or N bits/pixel?
- Message-ID: <1992Nov12.201126.16926@infonode.ingr.com>
- Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
- References: <1dn8rjINNdq3@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> <BxIGnI.EzD.2@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:11:26 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- tgl+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) writes:
-
- >The other main reason for bitplane hardware is that it takes up less address
- >space in cases where you don't have exactly 8, 16, or 32 bits/pixel; there
- >aren't unused bits in every byte. On real computers with 32-bit or better
- >address spaces, this isn't much of a concern, but on PCs it is a big issue.
-
- A 386 or 486 PC is a real computer with a 32bit address space.
-
- >A PC video card driver has to do bank-swapping to get at all of the card's
- >memory, so avoiding holes in the address space translates directly to fewer
- >banks, less swapping. Of course we all know that PCs are brain-damaged in
- >every possible way, especially so in video hardware...
-
- Then why do I have a $160 accelerated 640x480x24bit video board
- in my pc (that also does 800x600x15bit, 1024x768x8bit and
- 1280x1024x4bit, and this baby can do pattern fills at
- 50 megabytes/sec), while I keep hearing Mac users whining about
- having to pay $450 for a 640x480x24bit dumb frame buffer?
- Sure, dos is brain damaged, but PCs are not (anymore). You
- can't beat them for bang for the buck in the low (less than $5000) end.
-
- ------------
- Bailey Brown "Above all else, confusion reigns."
- Intergraph Corporation
- bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com Procol Harum
-