bufferedImage > MemoryImageSource?

[phu004]

Hi guys, I used memoryImageSource to fill the screen in the past, today I tried the alternative--bufferedImage and I found it was a lot faster.
(almost gained 20% more framerates).  I think I created some overhead when using memoryImageSource,  in theory MemoryImageSource
should be almost as fast as bufferedImage, isnt it?

I have up loaded my demos with the source code:

http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/87204/1-zip.html
(this one uses memoryImageSource)

http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/87208/2-zip.html
(this one uses bufferedImage)

The only difference between the two versions is inside "gallery.java".  I hope someone could help me find out
where I made those overheads or MemoryImageSource is just a slow ass compare to bufferedImage.

Thanks

[thijs]

MemoryImageSource is just slow ass compared to bufferedimages

I remember reading at some blog (I think from Chet Haase) that the MemoryImageSource class wasn't touched since java 1.1 while the BufferedImage class has been improved on since...