[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Linux Executor Notes



>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Oscar Lantinga <slouken@cs.ucdavis.edu> writes:
In article <4gtooh$9tg@mark.ucdavis.edu> slouken@cs.ucdavis.edu (Sam Oscar Lantinga) writes:


    Sam> 	Just my notes working with Executor 1.99q and 1.99q6

    Sam> For some reason 1.99q6 seems MUCH slower than Executor 1.99q
    Sam> The sound slowdown is still there.

Yes.  We've fixed "the" slowdown internally and 1.99q7 runs noticeably
faster.  I put "the" in quotes because I'm assuming that the slowdown
you're seeing is due to the bug we fixed, but we won't know for sure
until you get a chance to try 1.99q7.

    Sam> I play Spaceward Ho! on a 486 DX2/66 running Linux 1.3.68,
    Sam> and I have to restart Executor about every half hour because
    Sam> it slows down like molasses.  It takes upwards of 15 seconds
    Sam> for a menu to appear, and the slowdown happens gradually.  I
    Sam> believe this is a problem with the Linux sound, because this
    Sam> does not happen under Windows 95.  (BTW, sound under Win95 is
    Sam> scratchy on my machine)

It may be your kernel.  Lets see what happens when we get 1.99q7 out.

    Sam> When I check top, executor is taking upwards of 95% of my
    Sam> CPU.

    Sam> This is all under 1.99q because 1.99q6 was too slow to be
    Sam> useable for me.

    Sam> Sorry I don't have a better description of what's going on.

So far I don't think we need it.  1.99q7 should be out "soon".  Mat
and I are still hacking DOS floppy/cd-rom/mac-disk bugs.  Hopefully
we'll be done today and roll 1.99q7 tomorrow, although my track record
for predicting bleeding edge release dates (or any dates, for that
matter) is pretty bad.

    Sam> See ya!  -Sam Lantinga (slouken@cs.ucdavis.edu)

--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com


References: