Reinier,

There is no difference in the display handling (in fact there is no
difference in running Squeak as a browser plugin or not ;-) There are two
factors that may affect display performance though - one being that Squeak
just runs in a tiny window (basically VGA 640x480) and naturally, if the
display region is smaller there is less work to do. The second one might be
that there is nothing on the screen - meaning that there is only one Window
(no projects, no other workspaces) and this might slightly affect drawing
speed (though I think this is relatively unlikely). Actually, the biggest
difference I felt was that of image startup which is definitely due to
having the image shrunken before.

  Andreas
--
+===== Andreas Raab ========= (andreasr at wdi.disney.com) ==+
| Walt Disney Imagineering        Phone: +1 818 544 5016  I
I Glendale, CA                    Fax:   +1 818 544 4544  I
+======< http://isgwww.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~raab >========+


> ----------
> From: 	Reinier van Loon
> Reply To: 	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: 	Saturday, May 8, 1999 3:24 AM
> To: 	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Cc: 	recipient list not shown
> Subject: 	Re: [Win32] VM Update
> 
> Andreas,
> 
> >* Squeak running in a browser
> >  Experimental support for basically 'wrapping' Squeak inside a web
> browser
> >  [ Look at http://isgwww.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~raab/squeak/plugin/ ]
> Beautiful. Incredible. Unbelievable. Well done!
> 
> Why is its display handling so much faster than the normal image?
> 
> Thanks for putting the sources in Win32Sources.zip!
> 
> I was working on a HTML browser using a bit of JavaScript (almost
> finished)
> so that multiple users could be working on 1 image. This plugin does not
> change the philosophy but it certainly speeds things up at the client
> side.
> The next thing we need is an ImageSynchronizer.
> 
> Thanks Andreas,
> 
> I'm having lots of fun now!
> 
> Reinier.
> 
> 
>