Re: Eu 2.5 verryy sloww on Win XP ?
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Gbadebo Oladosu wrote:
> > Yes, I found this to be the case on Win XP as well.
> > I tested 2.5 with a Windows program, and you could tell right away by
> > how long it took for the program window to come up compared to 2.4.
> >
> > 'Debo
> >
> > codepilot Gmail Account wrote:
> > >
> > > I have 2600+ AMD XP, win98 euphoria 2.5 alpha, and winwire also goes slow.
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:36:31 -0800, Andy Drummond
> > > <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > posted by: Andy Drummond <andy at kestreltele.com>
> > > >
> > > > I have downloaded the alpha Eu 2.5, and it seems odd.
> > > > On my home PC - Pentium 3 500MHz Win 98SE - it runs fast as you like.
> > > > On my work PC - Pentium 4 2.8GHz Win XP & SP2 - it runs about 1-2%
> > > > of the speed of Eu 2.4. I installed it clean (renamed previous Euphoria
> > > > directory) and tried WinWire demo program - you can follow the letter E
> > > > quite easily, whereas at home it is all a blur and hard to see at all.
> > > > I tried Judith's IDE (I have a bound version which is reliable) and it
> > > > took over a minute just for the splash screen to appear.
> > > >
> > > > So - does anyone have any suggestions? it sounds decidedly weird to me.
>
> winwire looks pretty fast to me. 2.5 alpha, XP, Pentium 4 1.8 GHz.
Using a Athlon 64 2.8Ghz with 2GB RAM NVIDIA GeForce4 440
Go 64MB Gfx card, Win XP.
2.4: looks like a spinning E
2.5A: looks like colored static(that's quite fast!)
>
> Judith's IDE is a special case.
Time till splash screen:
2.4: less than 1 second
2.5a: 3 seconds
Time till completely started:
2.4: about 10 seconds
2.5a: about 5 seconds
CJBN Webserver start time:
2.4: 7 seconds (4 till splash)
2.5a: 2 seconds (2 till splash)
The Win32Dib demos(fps):
2.4: 20-800
2.5a: 100-1000
2.5 alpha seems to start the program slower,
but overall it runs much faster.
I care more about program speed than startup
time.
> It has code at the very beginning of the source
> to display a splash screen. Under 2.4 this splash
> screen appears almost immediately, then you wait for parsing
> to complete. That's because 2.4 will execute code before it
> has finished parsing the program. 2.5 parses the *whole* program before
> executing anything. Including Win32Lib etc., the IDE is
> 100,000 lines of Euphoria code. That's a lot
> of parsing to do, and 2.5 has a Euphoria-coded parser.
> 2.4 has a C-coded parser. So you might consider
> the IDE to be the "worst-case" example. It's the biggest
> Euphoria program I know of.
> If you bind the IDE using 2.5, or translate/compile it,
> it will start up much faster, because no parsing need be done.
> (Bound programs under 2.4 must be parsed).
> Other very large (tens of thousands of lines) programs may also
> appear to start up a tad slower using the 2.5 interpreter,
> but we're only talking about a second or two (unless you have an ancient
> machine). I think with the vast majority of programs,
> you'd hardly notice any difference. As computers get faster,
> this small difference will get even smaller.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
