Re: Eu 2.5 verryy sloww on Win XP ?
We'll I just tried again to make sure, and 2.4 winwire very very
fast>60fps, 2.5 like <20fps I think. 2400+athlonxp win98se.
Dan
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:44:18 -0800, CoJaBo <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> posted by: CoJaBo <cojabo at suscom.net>
>
>
> 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
|
|
