Discussions on more advanced topics such as monolithic vs micro-kernels, transactional memory models, and paging vs segmentation should go here. Use this forum to expand and improve the wiki!
He's got 5 stars, has his lair on the moon and has since been domesticated as inx explained. That should be enough to find him.
"Certainly avoid yourself. He is a newbie and might not realize it. You'll hate his code deeply a few years down the road." - Sortie
[ My OS ] [ VDisk/SFS ]
Just as an afterthought, since I just read something relevant, someone else agrees with me on using buffers per window. Read here.
arstechnica wrote:Nowadays it's not only practical to store information about the covered-up parts of windows (so that they can be revealed instantly)—it seems foolish not to.
jal wrote:Just as an afterthought, since I just read something relevant, someone else agrees with me on using buffers per window.
I haven't followed this thread so far, but the designers at Commodore-Amiga agreed with you as early as the late 1980'ies ("SuperBitmap" mode).
The thread was mainly (though not finally) about whether to have a buffer per window, or whether to use the good ol' Windows 3.1 update rectangle and repaint method.
As for the Amiga, that must have put some constraint on memory usage, as the main reason for not using it is memory shortage.
jal wrote:As for the Amiga, that must have put some constraint on memory usage, as the main reason for not using it is memory shortage.
The SuperBitmap feature was optional. Depending on generation, out-of-the-box memory was 512kB, 1MB, or 2MB on later models. Then again, we're speaking of sub-VGA to VGA resolutions here.
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
Solar wrote:The SuperBitmap feature was optional. Depending on generation, out-of-the-box memory was 512kB, 1MB, or 2MB on later models. Then again, we're speaking of sub-VGA to VGA resolutions here.
And probably 16 colour modes? Just fmi, did the Amiga use plain-oriented gfx memory layout?
