Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!tness7!tness1!flatline!erict
From: erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Bitblt chips and things (was Re: Self-modifying code
Summary: (I may be over my head :-)
Message-ID: <1110@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jul 88 22:17:50 GMT
References: <5254@june.cs.washington.edu> <76700032@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1090@ficc.UUCP>
Organization: a flat near the Montrose, Houston, Tx.
Lines: 29

In article <1090@ficc.UUCP>, peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <76700032@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> > 1.  Simple programs that need OPTIMAL speed, and would be outrageously
> > expensive on ANY machine.  The major example is BITBLT, a subroutine
> > with about 10-15 parameters that does a massive amount of linear-time
> > work.  If the BITBLT subroutines generates the machine code expressly

> You can save an even greater factor by building the BitBlt into the
> hardware. This is what the Commodore Amiga does, using a chip called
> the Biltter. I'm pretty surprised that a chipset this good that's cheap


Isn't this in essence what CBM did with the "sprite"s on the Commodore
64?  (Can I mention that machine in this group?  I didn't think so. :-)

For those that never toyed with the 64, it has a graphics chip that
handles from 0-8(? I think 8) MOB's called "sprites" (stupid name).
You tell it what the MOB looks like, then just tell it to move the
MOB.  It handles multi-color (out of 16), foreground/background, and
automatic collision detection.  I was amazed to find that IBM PC's,
Apple II's, and the other early C64 competition didn't have this capability.

Anybody know what home/micro computer did it first?  I'm pretty
sure the Vic-20 could do this, but I'm not sure about the PET.

-- 
Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy...
     [Obscure joke goes here]
J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
             ..!bellcore!tness1!/