Hello Chris On 16.07.11, you wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:32:58 +0100, Bernd Roesch wrote: > >>> This is a completely bogus/meaningless comparison. Firstly, a 100MHz >>> 68060 and a 100MHz PPC440 aren't going to be running at the same >>> speed. Even a 100MHz 68060 and a 100MHz 68040 aren't the same speed. >> >> between diffrent CPU and compiler can maybe 20-60% diffrence but the >> slowdown of OS4 version is >> 3-5*.thats very large.You dont want compile netsurf SDL Version to see if >> your use of Cairo slow >> all down. > > If that is what you are trying to achieve, then what you need to do is > compile NetSurf 2.7 Framebuffer-SDL for OS4, using the exact same > compiler with the exact same switches that I used, use a local page > for testing so there are no network variances, exact same window size > etc. If you do your tests under scientific conditions then maybe I > will take notice of the results. i dont know if you understand, we do not talk about some % speed diffrence.we talk about 3* faster of 68k netsurf. Its really hard to find a OS4 User that show his speed results.many OS4 users have a red sight glass, and never show something that on OS4 look not good. I never want use OS4, i dont think Hyperion is able to do a revival of the Amiga as they announces 1,5 years before with the X1000 that should come before summer 2010. better is of course when find a classic OS4 user and post his values of the 233 MHZ system.but as i told before, this is lots more slower. I only want information, that there is a huge slowdown problem.its upto you if you try to search for it, or build a netsurf OS4 SDL version to compare. you can also verify the results if you get same speed values. > > I would still rather receive a PATCH that improves the speed than an > email moaning that it is slow (especially as compared to other CSS > web browsers on the same hardware/OS, it definitely isn't) > >> Use netsurf on OS4 in 32 bit is maybe faster, because the routines >> need no byte swapping. > > NetSurf does byteswapping regardless of where it is run, either in the > bitmap conversion functions or when it goes to screen. This is true > even for RISC OS AFAIK. It certainly does not contribute to any 3x > difference in speed. > > Chris > Regards
