At 8:10 PM +0200 7/8/99, Ian Piumarta wrote:
>Does this imply that the graphics handling was faster in previous versions
>of the VM?  Some tweaks went in for strange visual classes, etc., that I
>thought would not affect anybody who didn't need them.  Maybe I was wrong.
>If this is the case, could you try recompiling from the sources in
>http://www-sor.inria.fr/~piumarta/squeak/unix/2.4c?  The window stuff there
>is not quite the same as in the 2.4c "release".

Perhaps I should clarify my original question. Squeak Linux performance is
fine when running under the local display (at least on my system). Using RH
6.0 and Enlightenment/Gnome with the local display, I can find no problems.
However, when running with a remote X server, BitBlt operations appear to
be very slow. For example, in my system, I often use Tenon's XTen 6.1 X
server to interface to my RH Linux. (XTen is a Mac application; an X server
for the Mac.) While the performance degradation of Enlightenment/Gnome on
the remote Xerver is negligible (compared to the local display), slowdown
of Squeak BitBlt is very significant. However, some drawing operations do
not appear to be affected; FFT>>test looks to be just as fast on the remote
server as on the local display. I don't think this is totally an issue of
the performance of the XTen server.
--dick peskin


=================================
R. L. Peskin,  Rutgers Univ.
;<peskin at caip.rutgers.edu>;<http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~peskin>
RLP Consulting <rlpcon at sover.net>; <http://www.sover.net/~rlpcon>