1. Dos32Lib Update
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
Nov 19, 1998
-
Last edited Nov 20, 1998
I've released the latest version of Dos32Lib. Features include:
1. New Look and Feel
2. HScroll, VScroll and RText
3. Window Frame Controls Changes
4. Multiple Window Support
5. Static Controls fixed
6. Message Box Modified
7. onKeyPress
8. onRightClick
9. onGetFocus/onLoseFocus
10. DESIGN.EX Demo (partially functioning)
11. Dummy lists removed
It's still an early alpha (read: incomplete and riddled with bugs), but
seems fairly stable. As usual, feedback is appreciated.
-- David Cuny
2. Re: Dos32Lib Update
David:
Turtle-checking on my old 386SX-16, does not give the impression of a big
speedup. Although I haven't taken the chrono yet, the long loading time for
the interpreter is still there.
I'll be back with figures.
Jesus.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
Para: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Fecha: viernes 20 de noviembre de 1998 8:04
Asunto: Dos32Lib Update
>I've released the latest version of Dos32Lib. Features include:
>
> 1. New Look and Feel
> 2. HScroll, VScroll and RText
> 3. Window Frame Controls Changes
> 4. Multiple Window Support
> 5. Static Controls fixed
> 6. Message Box Modified
> 7. onKeyPress
> 8. onRightClick
> 9. onGetFocus/onLoseFocus
> 10. DESIGN.EX Demo (partially functioning)
> 11. Dummy lists removed
>
>It's still an early alpha (read: incomplete and riddled with bugs), but
>seems fairly stable. As usual, feedback is appreciated.
>
>-- David Cuny
3. Re: Dos32Lib Update
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
Nov 20, 1998
-
Last edited Nov 21, 1998
Jesus Consuegra wrote:
>Turtle-checking on my old 386SX-16, does not give the
> impression of a big speedup. Although I haven't taken
> the chrono yet, the long loading time for the interpreter is
> still there.
Does Dos32Lib take that much longer to load than any other Euphoria program?
I don't think that there is anything special that should be taking that
long. When I ran it on a 386, I also noticed that the speed was slow, but
thought it was Euphoria loading, rather than something in my code.
The actual graphics on a 386 seemed to be a bit sluggish, but not
unacceptably slow. The main changes I made to the graphics (other than
making the interface leaner) were to make the code a bit more conserative
about refreshing the desktop, and avoid redundant operations.
Thanks for the feedback! What do you think of the new user interface?
-- David Cuny
4. Re: Dos32Lib Update
Jesus writes:
>Turtle-checking on my old 386SX-16, does not give the
> impression of a big speedup. Although I haven't taken
> the chrono yet, the long loading time for the interpreter is
> still there.
David Cuny writes:
> The actual graphics on a 386 seemed to be a bit sluggish,
> but not unacceptably slow.
I wonder if David had a 386DX. The SX is really a 16-bit
machine that has to read and write 32-bit quantities in
two 16-bit steps (plus 16MHz is pretty pathetic).
ex.exe runs in 32-bit protected mode and makes
heavy use of 32-bit addresses and numbers. This is bad news
on a 16-bit machine. Euphoria seemed to run ok for me
on SX's but I never did any benchmark comparisons.
The long loading time could be partly due to ex.exe being a
compressed executable. On a 486 or Pentium the
loading decompression is fast, and is offset by the
reduced disk I/O. On a 386-16 the decompression
will take much longer. The speed of CPU's has increased
by a much greater ratio than the speed of hard disks over the
past several years.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
5. Re: Dos32Lib Update
- Posted by Jesus Consuegra <jconsuegra at REDESTB.ES>
Nov 21, 1998
-
Last edited Nov 22, 1998
>Thanks for the feedback! What do you think of the new user interface?
>
Great!. I still miss the default button mouse-press by keying [enter], but I
understand that is in the way...
I love the ability of running all those windows programs under plain DOS...
just changing a line.
Good work, David!
Jesus.
6. Re: Dos32Lib Update
- Posted by Jesus Consuegra <jconsuegra at REDESTB.ES>
Nov 21, 1998
-
Last edited Nov 22, 1998
Robert:
>I wonder if David had a 386DX. The SX is really a 16-bit
>machine that has to read and write 32-bit quantities in
>two 16-bit steps (plus 16MHz is pretty pathetic).
>ex.exe runs in 32-bit protected mode and makes
>heavy use of 32-bit addresses and numbers. This is bad news
>on a 16-bit machine. Euphoria seemed to run ok for me
>on SX's but I never did any benchmark comparisons.
>The long loading time could be partly due to ex.exe being a
>compressed executable. On a 486 or Pentium the
>loading decompression is fast, and is offset by the
>reduced disk I/O. On a 386-16 the decompression
>will take much longer. The speed of CPU's has increased
>by a much greater ratio than the speed of hard disks over the
>past several years.
Do not take it as a criticism. I use to run all the programs under the
386SX-16 (just pathetic, as you said), because is a reference point and a
way to see an still image like view of the program running. Current Pentiums
are so blindly fast that one cannot realize the steps the loading process
takes. This is sometimes helpful for me, to help to identify the bottlenecks
or the poor design on the GUI.
Jesus.
