roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (08/24/90)
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: > FWIW, v3.69 has many functional improvements over v3.68. For MSDOS users, > it also supports BIOS video, which is less pelasing (to me) but faster. (ahem. I've moved this to alt.sources.d to give the source postings more breathing room :-) I've played about pretty extensively with Stevie 3.69 whilst modifying it for BBS use (under MS-DOS). I have compiled both with and without BIOS video writes. The non-BIOS routines are _significantly_ faster on my machine. The only difference I can see is that BIOS video doesn't require the NANSI driver. Perhaps I just have a lethargic BIOS? -- Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | Does virtual now available at: | main(){ | reality need cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | float x=1; | swap space? (cyberspace... be here!)| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | -- me
shurr@cbnews.att.com (Larry A. Shurr) (08/26/90)
In article <uJ2eo1w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: >> FWIW, v3.69 has many functional improvements over v3.68. For MSDOS users, >> it also supports BIOS video, which is less pelasing (to me) but faster. >I've played about pretty extensively with Stevie 3.69 whilst modifying >it for BBS use (under MS-DOS). I have compiled both with and without >BIOS video writes. The non-BIOS routines are _significantly_ faster on >my machine. The only difference I can see is that BIOS video doesn't >require the NANSI driver. Perhaps I just have a lethargic BIOS? It is possible that yours is more lethargic than usual. As the author of the "BIOS-only" option, I can tell you that the goal of that option was not speed, but: 1) ability to do without nansi/nnansi.sys which has restrictions on its commercial use which could be a problems for some folks and 2) ability to run on the TIPC. While speed was not my primary goal, I did all I could to make video output reason- ably quick -- some ways of using BIOS video output are mmmuuuuccchhh slower than others. Unfortunately, the PC video BIOS calls are slow under the best of circumstances. The TIPC video BIOS has options unavailable in the PC BIOS which substantially improve its throughput. That's why the PC's BIOS is so often bypassed -- it's so slow. That's also why there are programs like nansi/nnansi and FANSI-console which replace the video BIOS with faster code (well, faster technique and code). I compared nansi-dependent and BIOS-only Stevie on an AT&T 6386 and on a 6300. The differences were hard to evaluate, but it did not appear that BIOS-only Stevie was substantially slower than nansi. "Your mileage may vary," as they say, depending on your configuration. Writing a direct-video output option wouldn't be hard, though testing it with multitudinous video adaptors and their attendent options might be. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to write and test it at the moment, but I wonder what the interest level is since I hope to be in a better position soon. This is the first I've heard about Stevie in a long time. It didn't seem much like anyone even cared about it, much less had any opinions about the video output. regards, Larry -- Larry A. Shurr (cbnmva!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbnmva!las) The end of the world has been delayed due to a shortage of trumpet players. (The above reflects my opinions, not those of AGS or AT&T, but you knew that.)
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (08/27/90)
In article <uJ2eo1w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >I've played about pretty extensively with Stevie 3.69 whilst modifying >it for BBS use (under MS-DOS). I have compiled both with and without >BIOS video writes. The non-BIOS routines are _significantly_ faster on >my machine. The only difference I can see is that BIOS video doesn't >require the NANSI driver. Perhaps I just have a lethargic BIOS? Very likely so. There are three ways a program can write to a PC screen: (1) use the BIOS interface, (2) pump escape sequences at the DOS CON: device in the expectation that some ANSI driver (ANSI.SYS, NANSI, FANSI-CONSOLE) will be installed; (3) toggle the screen hardware directly. Programs that use the BIOS succeed almost everywhere, but they rely on the BIOS's efficiency and speed optimization, which frequently stinks. Some of the old IBM BIOS code, for instance, was an absolute pig on character write and flashed the screen repeatedly during scrolls to avoid snow during the retrace interval. Programs that use ANSI escape sequences are hostage to the presence, efficiency and completeness of the user's installed screen driver. With the right driver (NANSI or FANSI) applications can handily beat BIOS based times. This is probably the case with Stevie 3.69 on Roy's machine. Programs that write directly to the video hardware can often outperform everyone else, but are also most likely to have portability problems across various PCs and software environments. -- There's nothing wrong with Southern California that a ~~ Tom Neff rise in the ocean level wouldn't cure. - Ross MacDonald ~~ tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
hagins@dg-rtp.dg.com (Jody Hagins) (08/28/90)
I have seen alot of discussion of stevie. Where can I find it? Currently I have a version of vi which is more like edlin than anything else... Thanks, -Jody. +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ + | Jody Hagins (919) 248-6035 | My opinions are totally my own... | | Data General Corporation, RTP NC | (No one else wants them!!) | | hagins@dg-rtp.dg.com | | +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ +
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (08/28/90)
hagins@dg-rtp.dg.com (Jody Hagins) writes: > I have seen alot of discussion of stevie. Where can I find it? On SIMTEL: PD1:<MSDOS.EDITOR>STEVI69S.ZIP -- Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu |+| #define opinions ALL_MINE; main(){float x=1;x=x/50;printf("It's only $%.2f, but it's my $%.2f!\n",x,x);} "This is cyberspace." -- Peter Da Silva :--: "...and I like it here!" -- me
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (08/28/90)
jeff@sunvice.East.Sun.COM (Jeff Rabin-Sun-Ft. Lauderdale FL-SE) writes: > Where do I find "nansi.sys" for my MS DOS machine? (followup moved to alt.sources.d, since it contains no sources :-) The latest version was posted to comp.binaries.ibm.pc last week. -- Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu |+| #define opinions ALL_MINE; main(){float x=1;x=x/50;printf("It's only $%.2f, but it's my $%.2f!\n",x,x);} "This is cyberspace." -- Peter Da Silva :--: "...and I like it here!" -- me
jeff@sunvice.East.Sun.COM (Jeff Rabin-Sun-Ft. Lauderdale FL-SE) (08/28/90)
Where do I find NANSI.SYS? Jeff Rabin