>Interesting... it's just that performance in windows is far far superior to
>graphics performance in Squeak.  Operations in windows are actually quite
fast,
>while in Squeak they are unusably slow.

Folks on the list can correct me if I'm wrong, but Squeak heavily depends
on doing bitblt's from memory to the screen buffer. The bitblt from memory
to screen performance of a modern AGP based PC video card is as high as
200-300 megabytes/sec

Some older display adapters had no way to map the screen buffer into memory
and had to execute graphics processor commands that would take a stream of
data written to an I/O port to get the bits to the screen. The maximum
bandwidth for this is 3-5 megabytes/sec. The graphics accelerator could
draw lines and fill rectangles and do bitblt's from offscreen memory to
onscreen memory pretty fast (like writing text from fonts cached in the
display offscreen memory). For example, the old 8514 display was like this.
Windows apps generally send graphics commands to the card, not bitmaps, so
utilize this functionality quite well

- Jan