![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
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 10:48. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Meditating Guru
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Trondheim / Norway
Posts: 32
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
WinUAE developer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 49
Posts: 26,574
|
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)
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Amiga Fanatic
![]() Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Age: 46
Posts: 739
|
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? |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Meditating Guru
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Trondheim / Norway
Posts: 32
|
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 08:20. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
WinUAE developer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 49
Posts: 26,574
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Ex nihilo nihil
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 5,054
|
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 ??? |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
BoingBagged
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 46
Posts: 2,358
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Ex nihilo nihil
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 5,054
|
Quote:
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 ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 175
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 329
|
Since no Amiga (besides the CDTV and CD32) have non-volatile memory to store such settings, that's not possible.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 43
Posts: 935
|
All Amigas with RTC does actually have the ability to store some bits in its memory.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 329
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Ex nihilo nihil
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 5,054
|
^ cool news indeed.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 329
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Coder/webmaster/gamer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canberra/Australia
Posts: 2,681
|
Oddly, WinUAE seems to only support 96 bits rather than 104.
|
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinUAE Performance Issues. | kevlarian | support.WinUAE | 2 | 20 February 2019 16:33 |
Improving WinUAE performance | Octopus66 | support.WinUAE | 5 | 03 October 2016 10:06 |
WinUAE settings for best HD performance? | AEV | support.WinUAE | 3 | 16 June 2016 10:19 |
Winuae config for maximum performance? | Haywirepc | support.WinUAE | 8 | 03 March 2015 09:25 |
Stuttering and slow performance | 8bitbob | support.WinUAE | 8 | 04 November 2012 21:42 |
|
|