home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!miavx1!jdcarmack
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
- Subject: VGA on a RISC [was: Re: Windows NT]
- Message-ID: <1993Jan1.213944.14796@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
- From: jdcarmack@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
- Date: 1 Jan 93 21:39:44 -0500
- References: <3371.2B34C4CD@catpe.alt.za> <1992Dec21.154448.18823@wraxall.inmos.co.uk> <1992Dec27.191516.10755@netcom.com>
- Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Dec27.191516.10755@netcom.com>, samiam@netcom.com (Scott Moore) writes:
- > des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes:
- >
- ...
- >
- > Ive run serveral applications under NT that write directly to the VGA. They
- > simply are slowed down (a little), meaning that some of the accesses are
- > being emulated by NT. There is nothing inherently bad about direct hardware
- > acess, as long as it is controlled by the OS. This wouldn't apply to the
- > RISC case, since there is no VGA to access (I'm guessing character mode only ?).
- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
- This statement makes no sense to me, so pardon me if I'm showing my ignorance.
- What does VGA mode have to do with RISC/SISC? Most video cards come these
- days with their OWN chips on them, so what does this have to do with the
- CPU? Why couldn't you add a video card to a RISC? I could understand that
- the driver might be larger, but since most have their own memory, why should
- that make such a big difference?
-
- John
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- | John Carmack | "Why, no wonder you're late, this watch|
- | Academic Computing Service | is two days slow!" -Mad Hatter |
- | Miami University | |
- | Oxford, Ohio | |
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-