🚀 go-pugleaf

Lawson English (english@primenet.com) wrote:
: BlackHoleQ (blackholeq@aol.com) wrote:
: [snipt]
: : It couldn't be TOO demanding... My friend can run it on his 286 with 1MB
: : RAM.

: You again?

: 1) your 286 machine is using 320x200 pixels. 640x480 is about 5x that 
: many, just to draw it in the off-screen buffer.

: 2) your 286 machine is using Mode-X, which is page-flipping. The Mac 
: needs to blit it onto the screen using the CPU to to the work. That's 
: another 5x as many pixels moved around. Back-of-envelope figuring 
: suggests that a Mac needs nearly 10x as much horsepower to do Wolf3D with 
: acceptable speed as compared to a 286. That's not to say that this is a 
: GOOD thing for the Mac to require this kind of horsepower, just that that 
: is what is going on.

Oh, you don't know, how slow graphics is done on a 80x86!
You see only a small area of the screen in your address-room,
so you have to select a window, each time you display a pixel
and that takes a lot of time! (sure, if you are clever, you 
can decrease the number of address-window-changes).

Sometimes its even faster not to use page flipping - than you
may address the whole 320x200 screen at once - draw your screen
in memory and do a memcpy afterwards!

Thomas

PS: Sure the 286 didn't have to run the finder. So I do not think
that this is compareable!

--
                   Thomas GSCHWIND, Student at Technische Universität WIEN
--oOo--(^)--oOo--  email: tom@logic.tuwien.ac.at
      (o o)        URL: http://fbma.tuwien.ac.at/~e9225658/
       /|\         DOS is too DOSASTROUS for you? Try UN*X!