computer graphics in the 1950s

Richard legalize at
Thu Oct 16 14:50:18 CDT 2008

In article <48F781AD.4090303 at>,
    Eric Smith <eric at>  writes:

> Richard wrote:
> > and
> > no before someone gets off on another torturous stretch of the
> > definition, "block" graphics character sets on text terminals don't
> > count either.
> >   
> So now you're adding a constraint on the pixel size?  That seems rather 
> arbitrary to me.

Characters are not pixels, so no, I'm not setting a constraing on the
pixel size.  I *am* arbitrarily excluding text terminals with graphic
character sets.  Its not graphics in any sense that a practitioner of
computer graphics would call it.  If it were, bitmapped based displays

Since I'm the one asking the question, I get to decide what the
question means.  This isn't the floor of the US House of
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download

        Legalize Adulthood! <>

More information about the cctalk mailing list