OpenEuphoria

Re: Comparison of ex.exe and exw.exe

• Posted by DB James <larches at comcast.net> May 07, 2007
• 812 views

Robert Craig wrote:
> 
> DB James wrote:
> > I ran the following program first as a .ex file and then as a .exw file:
> > 
<SNIP>
> > 
> > The results were these:
> > 
> > --------------------------
> > Program run as an .ex file
> > --------------------------
> > Without task_yield() - Counter= 8907
> > With task_yield() Counter= 6990
> > Without task_yield() - Counter= 12522
> > With task_yield() Counter= 6990
<SNIP>
> > --------------------------
> > Program run as an .exw file
> > --------------------------
> > Without task_yield() - Counter= 6506820
> > With task_yield() Counter= 5603225
> > Without task_yield() - Counter= 6627387
> > With task_yield() Counter= 5908716
<SNIP>
> > The results are amazing in their difference in speed!  The .exw file ran
> > around 500 times faster.  The proportional difference in the task_yield() 
> > command is different too.
> 
> We found a while back that the time() function, which is also used
> inside task_yield(), is much faster on Windows than on DOS.
> 
<SNIP>
> > So, just because it ran in a Full Screen mode, it is a whole bunch faster?
> 
> I know that Windows runs DOS programs in some strange emulation mode
> that behaves differently depending on full-screen vs. 
> window. I don't really understand it. Another oddity that I came
> across was with the task_sort.ex demo. Run it, then start
> sliding your mouse back and forth. When your mouse is moving,
> the program runs much faster (and the program itself
> makes no use of the mouse).
> 
> Regards,
>    Rob Craig
>    Rapid Deployment Software
>    <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>

Hello,

Thanks for the clarification, though I'm still unsure about this:
When you say: "We found a while back that the time() function, which is also
used inside task_yield(), is much faster on Windows than on DOS." -- did
you accept the test results?  That is, does the astounding difference in
speed actually derive solely or primarily from the way Windows handles the
time() function, or is there something spurious in the test results?

Otherwise, I am going to muddle on and try to figure a way to deal with the
not particularly elegant-seeming way Windows handles its time allocation.

--Quark