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!/