From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jan 28 19:07:38 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00769
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:07:38 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00742
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:07:29 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA11589; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:07:13 -0800 (PST)
To: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@coppe.ufrj.br>
cc: joelh@gnu.org, tlambert@primenet.com, dag-erli@ifi.uio.no,
        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Graphical screen saver 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Jan 1998 01:02:14 -0200."
             <199801290302.BAA22088@gaia.coppe.ufrj.br> 
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:07:13 -0800
Message-ID: <11586.886043233@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> Isn't this too much overhead for a screen saver ?

Naw, done correctly at least, I'd expect the overhead from using such
an API to be negigible in comparison to the amount of work required to
physically get the character onto the screen, no matter how it's done.

					Jordan