BillW@su-score.arpa (William Chops Westfield) (01/10/86)
You, or perhaps the original poster if the bitblt explanation that started this discussion, seem to be missing a major point: Not all of the "images" that are the operands of the bitblt operation need to be the size of the full display bitmap. Typically, one operand is a 16 bit square bitmap containing a character, one is a similarly sized mask, and the remaining operands are the screen itself (a full 1000 x 1000 or so bit map). thus there is no reason to need to use virtual memory, and a lot of the original arguments on why bitblt was "on its way out" become invalid. bitblt remains the fastest way to put character or bit array data into a screen bitmap, no matter what the screen resolution. BillW