home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Message-Id: <199603091507.JAA03527@source.inf.net>
- X-Sender: hawk@inf.net
- X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- To: executor@ardi.com
- From: Calvin Smith <hawk@inf.net>
- Subject: RE: executor & windows95
- Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
- Precedence: bulk
-
- At 02:31 AM 3/8/96 -0800, you wrote:
- >
- >
- >----------
- >From: Scott Stegura[SMTP:scottuf@grove.ufl.edu]
- >Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 1996 12:54 PM
- >To: Mat Hostetter
- >Cc: executor@ardi.com
- >Subject: Re: executor & windows95
- >
- >Mat Hostetter wrote:
- >>
- >> >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Stegura <scottuf@grove.ufl.edu> writes:
- >>
- >> Scott> Well, as an experiment I tried running Executor under
- >> Scott> MS-DOS Mode and I was surprised because it ran almost twice
- >> Scott> as fast!!! The video was a lot faster and the CPU jumped
- >> Scott> from a 6 to a 12 on my 486DX2-66. Well, I guess from now
- >> Scott> on I'll run directly under DOS instead of Win95. I'm
- >> Scott> really surprised at how much of a drain Win95 is on my
- >> Scott> system.
- >>
- >> That's interesting.
- >>
- >> Video should be faster (if you've got UniVBE) because we can directly
- >> access the linear frame buffer under DOS. Still, I wouldn't think
- >> that the CPU number should slow down.
- >>
- >> Can you try:
- >>
- >> executor -nosound -oldtimer
- >>
- >> and see how fast it is under Win95? Thanks!
- >>
- >> -Mat
- >
- >The -oldtimer option helped speed things up some. The -nosound option
- >didn't help though. And I am running UniVBE 5.1a. However, things
- >still weren't up to DOS speed so I think I'll stick with the hassle of
- >exiting windows to go to DOS mode for now. Hopefully V3.00 (or maybe
- >V2.1) will be fully Win95 compatable.
- >
- >Scott Stegura
- >
- >I have the same problem you do with speed in '95. Well sorta...
- >Sometimes I can get it to run as fast as DOS when I use a simple command
- line like:
- >
- >executor -nosplash -memory 4M
- >
- >This command started working as fast as DOS around the time I changed my
- serial mouse to a PS/2 port mouse. I am not certain though.
- >
- >I noticed when running in a small amount of RAM if you continue to run
- executor, exit, then reload the numbers get less and less. So when I test
- different command lines like Matt suggests I always reboot.
- >
- >I took the liberty to use the command switches -nosound -oldtimer to see
- what I came up with. Below are my findings they are sorta interesting.
- >=====================================================
- >Specs:
- >
- >i486DX4100, 8M ram, Cirrus Logic (CL-GD5428) 1MB VBE 1.2
- >Using executor 1.99q8 and Univbe 5.1a
- >2.0 VBE extentions, Linear framebuffer loacated at 14Mb
- >Speedometer 3.23
- >Standard command line: Executor -nosplash -memory 4M
- >
- > CPU Graph Disk C: Math Bench avg Color avg
- >Dos* 11.456 7.701 3.707 26.614 17.375 1.674
- >-nosound 12.627 8.670 3.945 27.647 19.489 1.859
- >-oldtimer 13.206 9.382 3.827 29.395 21.067 1.972
- >both** 14.108 10.328 3.915 34.067 22.637 2.165
- >
- >Win95*** 11.456 7.613 4.160 26.250 17.108 1.678
- >-nosound 8.357 5.231 5.587 13.815 10.858 1.187
- >-oldtimer 11.768 7.657 6.865 26.468 17.199 1.687
- >both** 13.106 8.902 3.698 29.102 19.711 1.907
- >
- >*Used Smartdrv: smartdrv a b- c d 2048 0
- >**Executor -nosplash -memory 4M -nosound -oldtimer
- >***Only Explorer was loaded with Executor
- >==================================================
- >For some reason Win95 does not like -nosound. The really odd thing is when
- both -nosound and -oldtimer are in use, it is faster then each one
- individualy. Especially when -nosound is slower then executor running with
- just -nosplash -memory 4M.
- >
- >Looking at these results gives me a question. Why isn't -oldtimer part of
- the default settings when it makes the emulation run much faster?? What are
- the pluses and minus of using -oldtimer?
- >
- >Well anyways I hope this gets to all of you cuzz this took forever :)
- >
- >Enjoy,
- >
- >
- >Glenn R. Keyser
-
- I think that using -oldtimer will give you a less acurate timer so when you do
- this you can't trust spedomter to give you accurate resaults. Also when you
- run a hardware testing program like spedomter in a DOS box under a multitaker
- (windows, OS/2, deskview) then the program will only get to run some of the
- time so the ratings that you get are very far from accurate. Too see what I
- mean get a copy of speed200.exe which is a simple speed tester that runs on DOS
- this program will repeatadly test the machine for it's speed and when it's run
- on strait dos then the speed stays at the correct speed but when run in a
- DOS box
- under a multitaker (windows, OS/2, deskview) then the speed changes to much
- faster
- than what you have to much slower than what you have and goes back and forth.
-
- Basicily I don't trust a speed tester (including spedomter) when it's run in
- multitasking enviroment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Visit my home page at: http://www.inf.net/~hawk
- e-mail: hawk@inf.net
-
-
-