crouch@crunchie.axion.bt.co.uk (Chris Rouch) (02/21/90)
Maybe that's a bit unfair. Shape under HP-UX is slow. Like it can take > 30 seconds to refresh xmh after pulling down a menu if the menubutton is oval. Similarly with shaped icons. Is this a `feature' of the shape extension or of the hp server? In either case can we expect any go-faster patches? Chris ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Rouch crouch@axion.bt.co.uk RT3141, BTRL, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, England. +44 473 646093 unspoilt by progress
mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) (02/22/90)
> Subject: Shape extension is slooooooooooooooow > Maybe that's a bit unfair. Shape under HP-UX is slow. You're not alone in this experience. On a Sun-3 with the MIT sample server, I find shape to be very slow as well. I have a terminal emulator which I hacked on to make the window transparent (actually, nonexistent) where characters aren't. Scrolling is agonizing. From the looks of it, the server is clearing the whole window and generating Expose events every time it scrolls. To be more precise, *changing* shapes is very slow. Is this inherent in the extension or what? (No, this isn't crucial; the mod was just an exercise in using SHAPE.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (02/22/90)
Shape under HP-UX is slow. Like it can take >
30 seconds to refresh xmh after pulling down a menu if the menubutton is
oval. Similarly with shaped icons.
I just tried xmh against our topcat, and it might have been marginally slower
than on my Sun 3/60, but certainly under 1 second.rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (02/22/90)
On a Sun-3 with the MIT sample
server, I find shape to be very slow as well.
Under "normal" use I find it to be quite acceptable, at least on machines
with decent frame buffers and decent CPUs (a Sun 3/60 does qualify).
I have a terminal
emulator which I hacked on to make the window transparent (actually,
nonexistent) where characters aren't.
This is not normal use.
Scrolling is agonizing.
I'm not surprised.
To be more precise, *changing* shapes is very slow.
Yes, especially for complex shapes, in the current implementation.
Is this inherent in the extension or what?
Probably not, it's probably largely due to the region representation used
in the server. I'm sure much more complicated and clever representations
are possible. Perhaps you could perform the same experiment with something
like psterm in NeWS, and see if it has similar problems?arne@yc.estec.nl (Arne Lundberg) (02/24/90)
In article <9002221350.AA01037@expire.lcs.mit.edu> rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) writes: > > Shape under HP-UX is slow. Like it can take > > 30 seconds to refresh xmh after pulling down a menu if the menubutton is > oval. Similarly with shaped icons. > >I just tried xmh against our topcat, and it might have been marginally slower >than on my Sun 3/60, but certainly under 1 second. I have also found the round buttons unuseably slow on my mono HP 9000/340. I have now found out that if I start the server with -bs -su to disable Backing Store and Save Unders the speed becomes much more reasonable? Could this be the reason for this apperant disagreement? Is there any reason for backing store or saveunders to interact with SHAPEd windows? -- Arne Lundberg
crouch@crunchie.axion.bt.co.uk (Chris Rouch) (02/26/90)
In article <1064@esatst.yc.estec.nl>, arne@yc.estec.nl (Arne Lundberg) writes: > In article <9002221350.AA01037@expire.lcs.mit.edu> rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) writes: > > > > Shape under HP-UX is slow. Like it can take > > > 30 seconds to refresh xmh after pulling down a menu if the menubutton is > > oval. Similarly with shaped icons. > > > >I just tried xmh against our topcat, and it might have been marginally slower > >than on my Sun 3/60, but certainly under 1 second. > > I have also found the round buttons unuseably slow on my mono HP > 9000/340. I have now found out that if I start the server with -bs -su > to disable Backing Store and Save Unders the speed becomes much more > reasonable? > > Could this be the reason for this apperant disagreement? I suspect so. I've just started the server with -bs -su and the difference is staggering. Refresh rate is now, as Bob says, less than 1 second, rather than the 30 seconds I was getting before. Chris ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Rouch crouch@axion.bt.co.uk RT3141, BTRL, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, England. +44 473 646093 unspoilt by progress