Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990228123810.009a8100@pop.globalserve.net>
X-Sender: derbyshire AT pop DOT globalserve DOT net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:38:10 -0500
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: Paul Derbyshire <pderbysh AT usa DOT net>
Subject: Re: Is Allegro too slow for 648 * 480 double buffering ?
In-Reply-To: <36d9629e.17499764@158.152.254.68>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

At 03:53 PM 2/28/99 GMT, you wrote:
>Is Allegro too slow for 648 * 480 double buffering ?

Allegro is as fast as it can be at that and darn near everything else it
does. If something's "too slow" for what you have in mind, it's the
compiler or the computer. For the fastest compiled code, use the latest
pgcc from (IIRC) http://www.goof.com to compile your program (don't forget
to link it with a liballeg.a compiled with pgcc too!) and if it's still not
fast enough? *shrug* better start saving to upgrade to something like a
PII-333. :-)

-- 
   .*.  "Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not
-()  <  circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a
   `*'  straight line."    -------------------------------------------------
        -- B. Mandelbrot  |http://surf.to/pgd.net
_____________________ ____|________     Paul Derbyshire     pderbysh AT usa DOT net
Programmer & Humanist|ICQ: 10423848|