On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Mahler Thomas wrote:

> Richard L. Peskin wrote:
> > 
> > I find that the window refresh and other BitBlt operations of Squeak2.4c
> > under Linux (Intel) is quite slow. My base of comparison is the Mac
> > version, and, more to the point, VisualWorks 3.1 under the same Linux. What
> > have others experienced?
> 
> I made the same observation regarding Linux and NT running on the same
> box: Squeak Graphic on LINUX is slow compared with Squeak NT or other
> systems (e.g VWNC for LINUX)
> I just made another interesting observation:
> I'm running an WinNT Emulation (VMWARE 1.0) inside my Linux Box. 
> Squeak Graphic on this emulated NT is still much faster than on native
> Linux.
> IMO this is a proof that the poor performance is not caused by Linux X
> Servers but must be caused by the Squeak Graphic implementation for
> Linux itself.

AFAIK Squeak does not yet use the XFree86 X server's Direct Graphics
Access (DGA) protocol, whereas VMware does (is it still faster when
running NT in a window, or only if you go full-screen?). That may make a
difference. Or is BitBlt slower in general, not only on the Display?

> > Also, I cannot get any sound output with 2.4c under Linux. I have an
> > Ensonic 1370 board and it appears to work in other situations. Any idea
> > what might be wrong?

On my machine only /dev/audio works, not /dev/dsp. So recompiling for
/dev/audio (see sqConfig.h) got me some (poor) sound.

  /bert