I haven't tried any other versions but 1.7, but I did notice that. I tried playing with all the emulated cpu clock settings but I just assumed it's old free software and isn't perfect. I never tried any older versions to notice a regression. I thought it was mostly the widget library mayve being too simple and inefficient. But definitely the machine I was running on was not the problem in terms of hardware. This was also self compiled with no errors or warnings after I cleared up a few things, and it was the latest version of (i forget the gui lib name) not the older version explicitly mentioned in the docs, so I figured it could be that too.
So with a few different ways that might mean self-inflicted problems I didn't complain. But as a data point to your question, yes I find 1.7 to be very slow. I'll have to try 1.6 -- bkw On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 7:46 PM Tom Wilson <wilso...@gmail.com> wrote: > Speaking of 1.7... I installed it next to 1.6, and I've noticed that > booting and running programs on 1.7 is MUCH slower.... like the CPU > emulation is running at 1MHz or something. > > Has anyone else seen this, or am I just going crazy? > > > Tom Wilson > wilso...@gmail.com > (619)940-6311 > K6ABZ > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:05 PM Gregory McGill <arcadeshop...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> nice!!! >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:03 PM Stephen Adolph <twospru...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, it's been a learning journey but I've been able to get VirtualT to >>> support and emulate REXCPM hardware! >>> I'm happy because it means I understand at least something about C and >>> C++ now ;). >>> >>> This is a great step forward, as now it will be much easier to port Rex >>> Manager over to the new hardware. >>> >>> I'll work with Ken to hopefully get this work into the main stream of >>> VT. What I've done is a fork from VT 1.7 >>> ..Steve >>> >>> >>> >>>
