🚀 go-pugleaf

[In the message entitled "RE: Et532" on Nov 26, 21:26, Rick Rodman writes:]
> I disagree with using an Intel anything, and I think using a compatible
> processor on the graphics card would simplify things.  You're a hardware
> person, I'm a software person.  How about a TI34020, then?

The Intel 960 is quite a nice part. Fast, easy to code, good tools available,
and a range of processor speeds to choose from. It is also very very cheap.
(I'm also a software person, or at least I think I am :-)

> > chip. Again a 960SA and a C&T VGA chip etc, would be a better choice in
> > terms of simplicity in the hardware.
> 
> VGA, eh?  I doubt that making it PC-compatible would make the software any
> easier to write.  PCs have no intelligence in their graphics.
> Heck, in terms of simplicity of hardware, dual-ported RAM and a 6845 would
> be easier. :-{  In fact I can picture a 8751 doing the SCSI side. :-/
> (Feel like another healthy arrrggghhhh?)

Yes, VGA. George pointed out that in terms of simplicity in the hardware,
a VGA chip (like the C&T 452) and the 960SA would be a nice match. PC
compatibility has little to do with it. Dual ported ram and a 6845 does
not make a 1024x768x256 color system... Even 'simple' frame buffer
designs are non-trivial without some LSI to do some of the work for us.
Also, remember that this card will reside on the SCSI bus. The main
processor will not have the video memory in its adddress space, so we want
something significantly more powerful than the 8751 (another Intel chip :-)
doing the rendering for us. The 960 is a great cost/performance part.

> 

> 


-- 
Dave Rand
{pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr	Internet: dlr@daver.bungi.com