This is going to sound strange... but what X server are you running?
Are you running a hardware-accelerated one, or pure software
rendering? I think the answer to that might contain the kernel from
which a full understanding of the problem (and thus, its solution)
might be formed.
Also, what dis
Here is my squeak version:
~$ squeak -version
3.9-7 #5 Mon Apr 24 20:07:28 PDT 2006 gcc 3.3.5
Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021]
Linux vps.piumarta.com
2.4.20-021stab028.18.777-enterprise #1 SMP Wed Sep 14
19:34:46 MSD 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
default plugin location:
/usr/local/lib/s
Brad Fuller wrote:
> Brad Fuller wrote:
>
>> Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Antonio,
>>>
>>> If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
>>>
>>> | a b |
>>> a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
>>> b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
>>> [a += b] timeToRun.
>>>
>>> you probably
On 2006 September 21 15:26, Antonio San. wrote:
> version
Antonio,
what does your
squeak -version
say, and what image number you have?
(Look at David's email a few minutes ago, it seems the VM build may make some
difference in feeling how fast /slow Squeak is)
FWIW, Milan
_
On 2006 September 21 22:20, David Shaffer wrote:
> Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> > [snip]
> > I am starting to think (if I read your configuration correctly) - you do
> > have a different image (I have newer than 7055) and slightly different VM
> > - at least compiled using different GCC version... The
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> [snip]
> I am starting to think (if I read your configuration correctly) - you do have
> a different image (I have newer than 7055) and slightly different VM - at
> least compiled using different GCC version... The older GCC the faster :) -
> If you have time to experim
On 2006 September 21 17:06, Brad Fuller wrote:
> > Ouch! I just did this (twice, just to make sure) in the 7058 imagine and
> > squeak bombed with the output below.
> > This was with the latest Linux 3.9 VM. I tried with the 3.7-7 VM and it
> > bombed too.
> > kernel: 2.6.16-1.2080.16.rrt.rhfc5.cc
stephane ducasse wrote:
> can you report that on squeak-dev?
>
>
No...I'm sure the folks there would just convince me that I'm imagining
things and that 3.9 really is more responsive than my X desktop apps
;-) I tried that when I first came to Squeak. Anyway now I'm busy with
MathMorphs ;-)
Davi
stephane ducasse wrote:
> Hi david
> this is really strange because 3.9 is much snappier than 3.8 on our
> machines. This is strange.
> Do you use a special settings (such as some strange smallland setup?)
>
> Stef
>
Nope, fresh 3.9g-7055 image. I develop in 3.7 which is fairly snappy.
3.9 seems
hi-
Brad Fuller also wrote:
> Brad Fuller wrote:
>> Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
>>
>>> Antonio,
>>>
>>> If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
>>>
>>> | a b |
>>> a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
>>> b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
>>> [a += b] timeToRun.
>>>
>>> you probably get
On 2006 September 21 18:33, David Shaffer wrote:
> ] timeToRun.
>
> 15000
>
> At this point the UI is so slow that moving a window or morph results in
> a noticable lag (nearly a second between releasing the mouse button
> after a drag until the object that was dragged is drawn in its new
> locatio
On 2006 September 21 18:43, Ramon Leon wrote:
>
> Slightly off topic, but this is a noob list, maybe some will find this
> interesting. If you aren't using the index in #to:do:, why not simply...
Ramon - yes, hehe i do qualify for a newbie, my repertoir is limited :) -
thanks for the suggestion
> Gasp, sorry, didn't see that. I've loaded it now. Here are
> the benchmark results:
>
> [
> 1 to: 10 do: [ :i |
> XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld.
> XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openI
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> On 2006 September 21 15:07, David Shaffer wrote:
>
>> There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image.
>>
>
>
>> Milan Zimmermann wrote:
>>
> <>
>
>> I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with
>> MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :):)
Brad Fuller wrote:
> Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
>
>> Antonio,
>>
>> If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
>>
>> | a b |
>> a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
>> b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
>> [a += b] timeToRun.
>>
>> you probably get a number around 100 or 200. This means tha
On 2006 September 21 15:07, David Shaffer wrote:
>
> There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image.
> Milan Zimmermann wrote:
<>
> I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with
> MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :):) )
You would have to install the above package from Squeakma
Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> Antonio,
>
> If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
>
> | a b |
> a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
> [a += b] timeToRun.
>
> you probably get a number around 100 or 200. This means that Squeak
> can add two 32-bit float
Well. I have tested in other PCs with 3.8.
With this centrino 1.8Ghz, this evening I have tested
with 3.8, 3.9 and 3.7. (not croquet)
I'm not speaking about calculate power of squeak (that
I know is very good), is only a graphical question, in
sum up, to move pixels from here and there...
Result
can you report that on squeak-dev?
On 21 sept. 06, at 21:07, David Shaffer wrote:
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9
image is
unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
>
>> You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is
>> unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM).
>> I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too
Hi antonio
You should pay attention that some aspects of morphic are slow.
Lot of events are generated Now squeak is reasonably fast (much
faster than python and ruby in general).
Can you tell us more about the kind of game you want to build.
You can also use VisualWorks non commercial whi
On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
>
> You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is
> unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM).
> I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too
> slow for simple window operat
Hi david
this is really strange because 3.9 is much snappier than 3.8 on our
machines. This is strange.
Do you use a special settings (such as some strange smallland setup?)
Stef
On 21 sept. 06, at 17:55, David Shaffer wrote:
Brad Fuller wrote:
Maybe you should do some proper scientific tes
Antonio,
If you evaluate the following (and print-it):
| a b |
a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
[a += b] timeToRun.
you probably get a number around 100 or 200. This means that Squeak
can add two 32-bit float arrays with 16M entries in 10
Hi Antonio,
Which VM version are you using - could you try to run, in command line:
squeak -version
And report results, thanks. Older versions of VM caused high CPU use, but I
never had a "cpu overheat in a desmesurated way" :) - new version 3.9 is
fine.
Many people on squeak-dev including me
David Shaffer wrote:
> Brad Fuller wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should do some proper scientific tests on your specific needs.
>> What type of game are you going to create?
>>
>>
>>
> You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is
> unbearably slow on my linux-based lap
Brad Fuller wrote:
> Maybe you should do some proper scientific tests on your specific needs.
> What type of game are you going to create?
>
>
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is
unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM).
I've even t
Antonio San. wrote:
> I haven't any game, indeed I'm going to look for a
> good environment for game-develop learning ... and I
> think that squeak could be a very very useful project
> for spending efforts and time.
>
> But I have done the test with the "games" inside
> squeak: BouncingAtoms and
Hi Antonio,
The German company Impara has developed a lot of games in Squeak[1]. I
don't know if any of the Impara people is here, but if this is the case
may be they can make a point about Squeak as a game development platform
[1] http://www.impara.de/references.html
I think that Squeak is
I haven't any game, indeed I'm going to look for a
good environment for game-develop learning ... and I
think that squeak could be a very very useful project
for spending efforts and time.
But I have done the test with the "games" inside
squeak: BouncingAtoms and Blob.
Only 1 BouncingAtoms and 3
I have a webdav dir on apache2 on Debian Sarge. I can access it from
another machine using cadaver and browse the dir. However if I try to
use Monticello on it I get error: could not access http://
I am using an IP address since I don't have fqdn for it..yet.
I added the repository to montic
Hi Antonio,
Do you have any of these games to test? I have been using Squeak on
Linux without any slowness problem.
Cheers,
Offray
Antonio San. escribió:
I don't know if occurs the same in windows, but in
linux squeak is very slow.
I mean that all the thinks related to move pixels over
t
I don't know if occurs the same in windows, but in
linux squeak is very slow.
I mean that all the thinks related to move pixels over
the screen causes cpu overheat in a desmesurated way
and a big latency.
It is specially bad for videogames developed in squeak
because the movement of a picture imp
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:48:24PM -0400, David Shaffer wrote:
>
> Otherwise you can use ImageMagick either by executing it's various
> command line tools. For an example of running a command line app look
> at the UnixProcess class side method called testRunCommand. It is
> fairly straightforwa
34 matches
Mail list logo
