[REBOL] Re: rebol/view on a 486?
From: kolla:nvg:ntnu:no at: 21-Jun-2001 14:11
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Holzammer, Jean wrote:
> >Writing the program shouldnt be much of a problem, all it does is the
> >above as well as gathering the info on how many pecks were wrong or right
> >etc. but one thing I am a little concerned about is how well /view runs on
> >such a 486, and what OS to use below would be the best to get as little
> >overhead as possible, the choices are limited by the avaible drivers for
> >the touch screens; Linux/X11 and Win9x. I might be able to dig up a few
> >pentium100 machines to use instead, but if I could use those 486s it would
> >be splended :)
>
> CPU: I'm using /view on a 68060/50 (comparable to a Pentium I with same
> frequency). I only use it for creating images and as has some function
> (write clipboard://...) not yet available in current /Core. I try to avoid
> to actually view something on the screen as it is too slow. When typing
> text into an input field it takes almost 1 sec. for one character to be
> drawn !
You dont say if you have a gfx card on your amiga or not, and I do know how
fast
rebol/view is on my a3k/060/CVPPC/cgfx :) But in genereal I experience
rebol/view on PC as faster anyways, yesterday I used it one a P120 with
win98, and it worked faster than on my amiga. I had problems testing it on
a 486 with win95 due to lacking DLLs in win95 (MSVCRT.DLL and COM*32.DLL,
maybe something that should be mentioned in the installation documentation?!)
> So I think, using view on a 486 or a Pentium I/100 for the GUI doesn't make
> much sense.
>
> OS: Rebol need at least Win 95 that will run quite slowly itself on a 486.
In 640x480x8bit.. nah, ok :)
> Linux itself should be a bit faster, but graphics is slowed down by X.
Exactly, X is the bugger here.
-- kolla