»

[Piru]

Originally Posted by 0amigan0

@Fab:

You have a Linux cross-compile environment ready to go.
YOU might try your hand at it

You forget that the target for that cross compiler is MorphOS PPC.

[0amigan0]

Originally Posted by Piru

You forget that the target for that cross compiler is MorphOS PPC.

I didn't know that.
well, never mind.

[Fab]

Originally Posted by 0amigan0

I didn't know that.
well, never mind.

Indeed, my setup isn't ready at all for a 68k target. Not that it would be impossible of course, but sdk stuff always a tedious task (at least for me ).

In any case, if a 3.x developer with a "correct" gcc4 + libnix setup (no ixemul, thanks ) wants to give it a try, i'd be glad to help him. It won't be a very trivial task, so it needs a bit knowledge (i.e more than configure/make ).

Some things would have to be adapted or "degraded" to work on OS3.x/MUI3.8 (network thread support, MUI tabs or list methods, ...), but it's just some additional work, nothing impossible (and if it's too scary, one could always start with the AROS port first, which should compile more easily on 3.x). About the speed it would have on a real amiga, i couldn't tell though, but it would certainly be substancially than current SDL version in any case, at least regarding scrolling.

[bernd_afa]

>but it would certainly be substancially than current SDL version in any case, at least >regarding scrolling.

I look at the OWb 68k 1.2 (SDL version) and test without JIT.Scrolling is very slow need ca 1,3 sec for 1 frame.netsurf scroll also when pixel format not match with at least 8 fps on my System and disable JIT.

But when use the JIT OWB 1.2 scroll with 10-15 fps and thats lots faster as AROS Version run on my System.AROS Version scroll only with 3 fps on vmware.

Now when use OWB 68k 1.4 that use a enhanced SDL Version.It scroll on my system without JIT with 10-15 fps thats fast as netsurf do when pixelformat in SDL is ok.

But!!!

The OWB 1.4 need for a page load 2* longer as the OWB 1.2 full SDL Version.

So i think best is to fix in the SDL Version the pixel Match Problem.It seem SDL is in general very slow when it must convert pixel Formats.Same Problem is maybe with Cairo.

on 68k some GFX Cards work in RGBA some in BGRA.Cairo use same as opengl intern RGBA Pixel Format.any other must convert and get speedloss.

Do you know if its possible to set the Pixelformat of the OWB render engine to any Pixelformat, or use the OWB render engine a fixed Format ?

the Netsurf Render engine work only in the ARGB Pixelformat.This Pixelformat does Cairo not support native, so Cairo get some speedloss because it need convert internaly

What Pixel Format MOS use ?
Can MOS open screens of diffrent Pixelformats ?

[Fab]

Originally Posted by bernd_afa

>but it would certainly be substancially than current SDL version in any case, at least >regarding scrolling.

I look at the OWb 68k 1.2 (SDL version) and test without JIT.Scrolling is very slow need ca 1,3 sec for 1 frame.netsurf scroll also when pixel format not match with at least 8 fps on my System and disable JIT.

But when use the JIT OWB 1.2 scroll with 10-15 fps and thats lots faster as AROS Version run on my System.AROS Version scroll only with 3 fps on vmware.

Now when use OWB 68k 1.4 that use a enhanced SDL Version.It scroll on my system without JIT with 10-15 fps thats fast as netsurf do when pixelformat in SDL is ok.

The thing is when you scroll 20 pixels or so per step, it should be much faster, when a backstore scrolling method is used, which isn't implemented in the SDL backend.
For instance, here, on peg2, on average, with a 1024x768 window, rendering+scrolling a 1024x1 line takes about 2 ms. Rendering the whole page can take about 40-100ms (depending on content). So, implementing a proper scrolling method can effectively make scrolling dozens times faster (of course, when you scroll with a very big step (page per page or more), it doesn't have any benefit anymore).

But!!!

The OWB 1.4 need for a page load 2* longer as the OWB 1.2 full SDL Version.

No idea, but like i said several times, there are many things to be done in network layer.

So i think best is to fix in the SDL Version the pixel Match Problem.It seem SDL is in general very slow when it must convert pixel Formats.Same Problem is maybe with Cairo.

on 68k some GFX Cards work in RGBA some in BGRA.Cairo use same as opengl intern RGBA Pixel Format.any other must convert and get speedloss.

Do you know if its possible to set the Pixelformat of the OWB render engine to any Pixelformat, or use the OWB render engine a fixed Format ?

the Netsurf Render engine work only in the ARGB Pixelformat.This Pixelformat does Cairo not support native, so Cairo get some speedloss because it need convert internaly

What Pixel Format MOS use ?
Can MOS open screens of diffrent Pixelformats ?

The SDL version of OWB didn't use cairo at all. It used sdlgfx to render (since a few weeks, it can also use cairo to render, blitting still happens in SDL of course).

And by the way, Cairo supports ARGB pixel format.

[bernd_afa]

>when a backstore scrolling method is used, which isn't implemented in the SDL backend.

but its easy to do so.
see code in netsurf

http://source.netsurf-browser.org/tr...1=9719&r2=9720

and when use HW surface the System blitter is used

> No idea, but like i said several times, there are many things to be done in network layer.

when a test is done 10 times and always 10 times 1.2 work 2* faster as 1.4 and times do not differ more than 10-20% each test then can in real world 100% sure 1.2 is faster.

[0amigan0]

@Fab:

Can I use this guide ( http://www.zerohero.se/cross/os3.html ) in order to setup a cross-compiler environment ??
Are the tools indicated, up-to-date ??

[samo79]

Originally Posted by bernd_afa

If OWB is faster, then wy netsurf is a google summer of Code projecrt since 2 years and there is no OWB Version in a Linux distri ?.the big disadvantage of netsurf is currently missung java script but its in Linux Distri.

netsurf is in Linux distri.Wy not OWB ?

Because OWB is a Sand-Labs project initially dedicated only to CE device and it was/is builded around WebKit, you didn't found it on Linux yet just because they are use a more complete core or complete browser around the same WebKit core

Having said that you can't compare it with NetSurf that it is actually a "spare time" project maded by a little and passionate community, mostly RiscOS developers ...

As Fab say actually OWB on OS4/MOS are MUCH faster than any NetSurf release and it is constantly updated.

What I like to see (maybe one day) is a MUI version that can cover all the Amiga like systems, expecially for AmigaOS 3.x, that because when OS4 Reaction class are constantly updated, 68k class not :-)

P.S.
I'm a NetSurf 3.x betatester on OS4 so I know very well what I say ;-)

[bernd_afa]

Originally Posted by samo79

P.S.
I'm a NetSurf 3.x betatester on OS4 so I know very well what I say ;-)

You cant compare the OS4 version that use another layer (Cairo) with the 68k Verison.In some post is written that 68k netsurf was faster as OS4 netsurf btw.

netsurf 68k can also show files offline when do file://dh2:test.html to show dh2:test.html.
but must be sure that all references gone to file

I have measurement enough and i notice always the same that other have written too (link in this thread).OWB show a page much later as all other browsers.I see this on a Video too.If this video is not good, then wy there is no better.

And its near impossible that this in MOS or OS4 is better

In Amiga land its known everybody want have the best system and you cant believe what cant see with own eyes.

But i not buy a MOS or OS4 system to see same as i can see on AROS.Maybe OWB scroll on MOS or OS4 faster, but how many time is need to show the page first doesnt depend on GFX Speed because also the AROS Version can render a page in 300 ms.

>What I like to see (maybe one day) is a MUI version that can cover all the Amiga like >systems, expecially for AmigaOS 3.x, that because when OS4 Reaction class are >constantly updated, 68k class not :-)

I like to see this too, but as long every system want fight for more user with a better browser its lots work when all systems do their own Version.

And i have hope in 1-2 years when the MOS/OS4 developers maybe see there cant make enough money with the OS they stop the lots work spend on browser.

and then the last existing users/dev maybe do together bring a actual browser.
I can also port in 4 years OWB to 68k, maybe then OWB is better

[Fab]

Originally Posted by bernd_afa

I have measurement enough and i notice always the same that other have written too (link in this thread).OWB show a page much later as all other browsers.I see this on a Video too.If this video is not good, then wy there is no better.

And its near impossible that this in MOS or OS4 is better

In Amiga land its known everybody want have the best system and you cant believe what cant see with own eyes.

Will you finally understand that there are some differences between all these OWB ports? In MorphOS port, I changed a few things because the default values were just not adapted for "modern" inet speeds (that small change can actually make transfers 20 times faster, going from 400kB/s to 8MB/s locally ...). And more importantly, I threaded the network to give a better responsivity.

Recently, the AROS port implemented backstore scrolling, and also the trivial (but needed) network speedup. So you might try it again, and finally understand that the plain SDL OWB port doesn't mean nothing at all, performance-wise, and that some work is needed, just like in netsurf...

I like to see this too, but as long every system want fight for more user with a better browser its lots work when all systems do their own Version.

And i have hope in 1-2 years when the MOS/OS4 developers maybe see there cant make enough money with the OS they stop the lots work spend on browser.

and then the last existing users/dev maybe do together bring a actual browser.
I can also port in 4 years OWB to 68k, maybe then OWB is better

Or maybe that in 4 years, you'll have finally understood that not everyone wants to develop on a dead OS, and that if you really want it, you could port it yourself, instead of waiting for someone to do it. And by the way, I offered my help for a 68k port, and someone contacted me about it.

[Piru]

Originally Posted by bernd_afa

And i have hope in 1-2 years when the MOS/OS4 developers maybe see there cant make enough money with the OS they stop the lots work spend on browser.

As "making money" isn't the goal I'm afraid we can't grant that wish.

[samo79]

Pardon but how you can't make a speed comparision in a YouTube video ??

I tried also NetSurf on 68k but I can't say if speed are really better than the OS4 release as I play with it on an old x86 PC in emulation via WinUAE, but aniway in one thing i'm sure 100%, OWB under OS4 is perfectly for navigation and there aren't any issue on this way

Maybe we can speak about UI problems or other issue but not about time rendering

Latest OWB's rendering on my Flex 800 is faster than Firefox 3.0 on an high-end PCs, but you are free to believe anythings ;-)

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Piru

As "making money" isn't the goal I'm afraid we can't grant that wish.

So the price tag of MorphOS is there to keep the number of whining users down - that's what I've been suspecting

[Karlos]

No need to knock C++ in this thread. It's perfectly possible to write fast C++ code. It's my preferred development language, even on m68k amigaos.

One of these days I'm going to have to write all the strange things I discovered in gcc 2.95.3 on m68k Some of them are quite useful.

[bernd_afa]

>As "making money" isn't the goal I'm afraid we can't grant that wish.

What is the goal then, when MOS is not opensource or at least, some Part as libnix or MUI4 can port to other AOS to make it more easy to write Programs that run on all Amiga Systems ?

There are lots devs that support all systems with same program and common libs help alot to use modern features.

So when all side (MOS OS4) release their closed source stuff, the few existing AOS devs can add more features in shorter time and the programs look better in compare to Linux or windows Software.

also there need not several devs that work on the same stuff.so a dev can do a other program and so more programs come.

but what currently happen in amigaland is this.

A ship sink and there are 4 guys left, but instead they join 1 boat, every guy use his own boat.

but every guy must sleep, so they move slower forward.

But in amigaland its of course more complicate because every "boat" have his advantages but also lots disadvantages that avoid to join the boat.So its impossible to get all in 1 boat.

but we can all boats put together with a "line" so when some guy sleep in 1 boat, the other guys move him forward.

The line is when apps can easy port by having same API.
The Linux World go this way and everybody can use the system he want.If that is maybe PPC or X86 or ARM or 68k or other.

On Linux i think 90% use on Desktop/Server X86, but nobody say other CPU are dead.All other CPU have the same API and the Linux devs spend many work to make porting easy by doing configure scripts.

And because the linux world make porting easy, thats the important for OS4 or MOS.
When unix world do same as MOS or OS4 devs, i think there was no MOS or OS4 possible, no Compiler, no OWB, and most the other apps for OS4 MOS that are Linux Ports

>Or maybe that in 4 years, you'll have finally understood that not everyone wants to >develop on a dead OS,

thats clear that not everybody want code for all OS, but that you call 68k AOS as a dead OS this propaganda i have hope change in next few years and the other sides notice the reality that all MOS OS4 68k AOS AROS are the state of a dead OS with near no market and programs.For 68k you can buy new cheap and fast X86 Hardware, and it is furtherdevelop, have actual compilers, have upto date Unix libs and good graphical debuggers to develop programs fast.

And thats i miss on the other systems, so i stay on 68k until the other Systems reach this minumum features.

And to make AOS more alive there help only working together.

Originally Posted by Karlos

No need to knock C++ in this thread. It's perfectly possible to write fast C++ code. It's my preferred development language, even on m68k amigaos.

Yes its possible to write fast programs in C++ too, but you need then lots asm knowledge, and need look at the asm Output, because you can easy write code a = b in 1 line that do thousands of CPU cycles.And because many of the C++ students do not know anything about how a CPU work, they write in most case not fast code.So it happen that C++ programs are big and slow and beginning and lots work is already flow in code optimizing to run fast enough, but fit not so good in the OO sheme.

I think c++ is good when we have 30 GHZ CPU 8 GB Ram SSD Harddisk that transfer 600 Megabyte /Sec, then speed is with clean OO Code really fast enough and also the compile speed of big c++ programs is not too large.

The main reason that i not try to port firefox now is because the long C++ compile time.
its really frustrating to do a change in a header file and must wait over 30 minutes until you can test it to see if you do all correct.And when you have not done correct you need wait another 30 minutes.

When i type make i dont want wait longer as 2-3 minutes for the working exe.

netsurf btw compile in 45 sec and so it make fun.