Alice99

Bruce ONeel beoneel at mindspring.com
Thu Feb 10 14:13:54 UTC 2000


Hi,
  Well, your system is probably faster.  Note how small my display was 
(640x480 or 640x400).  Lot fewer bytes :-)

cheers

bruce

Stephan Rudlof <sr at evolgo.de> wrote:
> I have
> 	 (8->1854 16->2064 32->1566 )
> on a
> 	Pentium mobile 366, Linux 2.2.10
> and a
> (--) Mach64: PCI: Mach64 Rage LT Pro rev 220, Aperture @ 0xfd000000,
> Registers @
> (--) Mach64: Memory type: SGRAM (5)
> (--) Mach64: 1024x768 panel (ID 1) detected;  clock 65.14 MHz
> (--) Mach64: Clock type: Internal
> (--) Mach64: Maximum allowed dot-clock: 230.000 MHz
> (**) Mach64: Mode "1024x768": mode clock =  66.000
> (--) Mach64: Virtual resolution: 1024x768
> (**) Mach64: Video RAM: 8192k
> (--) Mach64: Using hardware cursor
> 
> graphics with a LCD screen.
> 
> Isn't it a little bit worse?
> 
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce ONeel wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> >  It's old and slow with a 16 bit i/o bus... PB540c with 100hmz 603e
> > 
> > Full Screen:
> > 640x480x8 (789 804 1570 956 1303 )
> > 640x400x16 (1241 1241 1297 1248 1553 )
> > 
> > In a window:
> > 640x480x8  (1980 2009 2105 2425 2528 )
> > 640x400x16  (2681 2693 2742 1152 2836 )
> > 
> > Yes, the 16 bit color is 640x400 and I know we're not measuring the same
> > thing since my display is so much smaller.
> > 
> > cheers
> > 
> > bruce
> > 
> > "Raab, Andreas" <Andreas.Raab at disney.com> wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > Just FYI: Squeak relies *heavily* on a single function that needs to
> > > implemented by the graphics driver. If your driver doesn't support this
> > > function directly, some weirdo Windows simulation code will be run and that
> > > makes things *really* slow. If you wish to find out if you've a problem here
> > > you might want to run the following code:
> > >
> > > #(1 4 8 16 32) collect:[:depth|
> > >       Display newDepth: depth.
> > >       Smalltalk garbageCollect.
> > >       Time millisecondsToRun:[10 timesRepeat:[Display forceToScreen]]].
> > >
> > > Here are the results from my machine (PII 400Mhz, ATI Rage LT AGPx2),
> > > running Squeak 2.7 in fullscreen mode on Win98:
> > > 1024x768x8:   (  68  251  410  716  724 )
> > > 1024x768x16:  (  65  601  684  458  424 )
> > > 1024x768x24:  ( 117  265  304  800  337 )
> > > 1024x768x32:  ( 114 1099 1192  898  239 )
> > >
> > > Note the funky differences! For optimal performance you should run Squeak in
> > > the same display depth as your card is in but sometimes there are subtle
> > > differences so it's best to actually try it out.
> > >
> > > [That reminds me: Somebody should write a benchmark tool that measures
> > > typical operations (just like the above) so that one can get an idea of how
> > > fast a squeaky system one is running on. Any volunteers?!]
> > >
> > >   Andreas
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Rik Fischer SmOOdy [mailto:riks at cs.pdx.edu]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 12:20 AM
> > > > To: Milan Andric
> > > > Cc: recipient list not shown
> > > > Subject: Re: Alice99
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In message <389BA7DA.B7017887 at cs.pdx.edu>you wrote:
> > > > > Rik,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a dual PII w/Voodoo3 video card at home and I found Squeak to
> > > > be
> > > > > terribly slow (probably because of video subsystem). I still haven't
> > > > > received your feedback on whether should we use Alice 99 or not.
> > > > > Please reply asap, so I can adjust my work. In the meantime I'm
> > > > working
> > > > > in Squeak... (which sometimes really hurts...)
> > > > I looked in http://www.egroups.com/list/squeak/
> > > > and found nothing about voodoo.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps someone on the squeak mailing list has seen
> > > > some sort of impedance mismatch between Squeak and voodoo?
> > > > If so, please advise.
> 
> -- 
> Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
>    "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
>     You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
>     -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list