Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:30:29 +0800 (GMT) From: Orlando Andico To: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" cc: demmer AT lstm DOT ruhr-uni-bochum DOT de, djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: SVGALIB stuff In-Reply-To: <9611261638.aa19022@ailin.inti.edu.ar> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote: > I discussed that a couple of month ago, if you make a TVison port using Curses > you'll need a mainframe to get a relative good speed in the screen. > On the other hand you can rewrite TVision to be more efficient and eat more CPU > instead of making so much screen output, but that's a real nightmare. Do you > have any idea of how complex are the output routine for this kind of programs? that's the point i really was making.. i did read your discussion a couple months back, i've done programming under curses, i know how slow it is for the type of thing tvision does. that's why i asked if direct video writes are feasible. true, people on terminals can't use it; so what? the Linux SVGALIB can't be used by people on terminals, that doesn't stop its being popular.. or usable. true, direct video writes are at odds with the rest of the Unix world. same thing with SVGALIB, but people use it. i know how complex tvision is, that's why my suggestion (wondering?) was, would it be possible to reimplement ALL the functions? tvision is built on top of these, so theoretically if is reimplemented (i.e. like it's done in the libpc.a of DJGPP) things should work... right? .-----------------------------------------------------------------. | Orlando Andico email: orly AT gibson DOT eee DOT upd DOT edu DOT ph | | IRC Lab/EE Dept/UP Diliman http://gibson.eee.upd.edu.ph/~orly | | "through adventure we are not adventuresome" -- 10000 Maniacs | `-----------------------------------------------------------------'