English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.WinUAE

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 29 June 2019, 11:40   #1
matsp888
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 27
Slow performance with AmigaOS 3.1.4 in WinUAE 4.2.1

I've found some example code for using outline fonts and the separate Bullet font scaling engine (bullet.library) in Workbench 2.1 and up in a 1992 Amiga Mail article, which i've "enhanced" somewhat. I recently noticed that the rendering is very slow in AmigaOS 3.1.4 compared to e.g. AmigaOS 3.1, for some reason. I have only run WinUAE in VirtualBox in Linux, but I notice the relative difference in speed nevertheless. Now not many people use 3.1.4 in WinUAE, I guess, but I still wanted to mention it. The "BulletExamples" package can be found at Aminet for testing.

Last edited by matsp888; 29 June 2019 at 11:48.
matsp888 is offline  
Old 11 January 2020, 02:33   #2
svin83
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Trondheim / Norway
Posts: 27
Probably off topic, but that sounds like an inefficient solution to Amiga emulation.

Emulating complex chipsets on top of all those layers of abstraction and virtualization is IMHO like asking for higher latencies and lower performance.
svin83 is offline  
Old 11 January 2020, 10:22   #3
Toni Wilen
WinUAE developer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 44
Posts: 23,591
Due to various reasons, I don't have and won't use 3.1.4. (and perhaps it works as designed and is slower everywhere)
Toni Wilen is offline  
Old 11 January 2020, 20:56   #4
StevenJGore
Amiga Fanatic

StevenJGore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Age: 42
Posts: 490
I use it with WinUAE with a 3.1.4 ROM too, it works fine as far as I can tell. No speed problems when JIT is on.

What's the reason for not using it, Toni? I've been out of the Amiga scene for a year or two until recently, have I missed something?
StevenJGore is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 09:14   #5
svin83
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Trondheim / Norway
Posts: 27
Since I left Micro$oft for Linux a few years back, I currently use both official builds and dev-builds of FS-UAE.

Most of the emulation code is IIRC ported/adapted from the available WinUAE source code. I don't know if rom-loading and initial startup routines are identical/similar.

Emulator startup/init is very slow with 3.1.4-A1200.rom. Both cold boot and reboot affected.


WB 3.1 & KS 3.1:
Completes boot ~2 seconds after I click start.


OS 3.1.4.1 & KS 3.1.4-A1200:
Seemingly just hangs on launch. After ~10 sec. It suddenly starts booting.

Last edited by svin83; 12 January 2020 at 09:20.
svin83 is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 11:52   #6
Toni Wilen
WinUAE developer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 44
Posts: 23,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by svin83 View Post
OS 3.1.4.1 & KS 3.1.4-A1200:
Seemingly just hangs on launch. After ~10 sec. It suddenly starts booting.
This is probably mainboard IDE related and most likely exact same happens with real hardware. (OS3.9BB2 has similar delay without disabling scsi.device patch)
Toni Wilen is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 14:02   #7
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 2,610
I have a similar slow boot issue with WinUAE 4.0.1 & ROM+OS 3.1.4 : If I use a 3.1 config without any HD or floppy inserted, change the ROM to 3.1.4 and start the emulation, the time it takes to display the "insert disk" animation is much longer with 3.1.4 than with 3.1 (A2000 or A1200, no difference).
Don't know but suppose it's because the ROM is not recognized by WinUAE. Maybe further checks/loops are done ???
malko is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 16:17   #8
gulliver
BoingBagged

 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 42
Posts: 2,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by malko View Post
Maybe further checks/loops are done ???
Yes. The IDE delay IS REQUIRED to properly comply with the standard specification. Reducing it would otherwise mean less reliability in detecting some drives.

A few times it was not implemented correctly, and it was faster. Kickstart 3.0 was an extreme example of that: for some drives to be detected you had to reset the amiga after boot to give them more time to spin up and be ready.
gulliver is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 17:27   #9
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 2,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliver View Post
Yes. The IDE delay IS REQUIRED to properly comply with the standard specification. Reducing it would otherwise mean less reliability in detecting some drives.

A few times it was not implemented correctly, and it was faster. Kickstart 3.0 was an extreme example of that: for some drives to be detected you had to reset the amiga after boot to give them more time to spin up and be ready.
Oh, I see. So there is nothing to do with the 3.1.4 ROM "not being recognised" by WinUAE.

This is what happens when you've we've been badly accustomed with previous ROMs .
Thanks Gulliver.

@StevenJGore : part of the answer to your question is, I think, available in the above link
malko is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 17:30   #10
Ami
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliver View Post
Reducing it would otherwise mean less reliability in detecting some drives.
But some (most?) drives are detected reliably, thus additional delay is unnecessary. I propose, this delay should be configurable by user.
Ami is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 19:23   #11
Rotareneg
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 116
Since no Amiga (besides the CDTV and CD32) have non-volatile memory to store such settings, that's not possible.
Rotareneg is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 22:13   #12
patrik
Registered User
patrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 39
Posts: 584
All Amigas with RTC does actually have the ability to store some bits in its memory.
patrik is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 22:42   #13
Rotareneg
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 116
Interesting, I did not know that. Looked it up and there was even a bit reserved for this purpose, to set the timeout value for SCSI device selection to either 128 ms or 2 seconds.
Rotareneg is offline  
Old 12 January 2020, 23:01   #14
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 2,610
^ cool news indeed.
malko is offline  
Old 13 January 2020, 00:31   #15
Rotareneg
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 116
Checked a bit more and it depends on the clock chip used. A3000 and A4000 used a RP5C01 which includes 104 bits of RAM, while the MSM6242B on the A2000 and A501 was just the clock. Looking at A1200 expansion cards, some used the RP5C01 but others used various RTC chips without RAM.
Rotareneg is offline  
Old 13 January 2020, 04:15   #16
Minuous
Coder/webmaster/gamer
Minuous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canberra/Australia
Posts: 2,025
Oddly, WinUAE seems to only support 96 bits rather than 104.
Minuous is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WinUAE Performance Issues. kevlarian support.WinUAE 2 20 February 2019 17:33
Improving WinUAE performance Octopus66 support.WinUAE 5 03 October 2016 11:06
WinUAE settings for best HD performance? AEV support.WinUAE 3 16 June 2016 11:19
Winuae config for maximum performance? Haywirepc support.WinUAE 8 03 March 2015 10:25
Stuttering and slow performance 8bitbob support.WinUAE 8 04 November 2012 22:42

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.08234 seconds with 15 queries