@Bernd_afa: OWB (68k) optimizations

[0amigan0]

If I don't go wrong, you have the sources of OWB (68k) made by joerg strohmayer.
You keep saying it is un-optimized, that it doesn't have threads, etc...
Well, improve it, give it threads; after you have "optimized it", someone else might give it a full "native" MUI interface.

[0amigan0]

....the OWB team have also speedup it....

Can't u take THAT source then, and make a new port for 68k ?

I need not sell a OS more by have a good browser, so i need not spend much time, i can wait some years so things go faster and browers get better portable and chrome enhance.

Sooner or later i buy a 4 core I5 or I7 then compiling get lots faster, then maybe at least the compile time of this slow C++ monsters is acceptable and i have fun to do it

Maybe someone else can do it, Artur perhaps ??

[0amigan0]

Sorry, but this is mostly wrong. Sure WebKit isn't as fast as ibrowse (what a surprise), but it's still *much* faster than NetSurf on the same machine, actually.
And my OWB port (and also OS4 one) is also *much* faster to scroll on my Peg2 than on a Xeon 2.5GHz machine under linux with the plain OWB SDL version. This isn't surprising, considering the SDL implementation doesn't implement a "smart" scroll method at all. As the AROS version doesn't implement that scroll method either and that blitting isn't exactly very fast on AROS, it's normal you found it slow, but it can be much faster.

The only bottleneck would then be the high compilation time.

@Fab:

How long would it take to cross-compile your version on a *very* powerful Windows machine ?

[0amigan0]

@bernd & Fab (or others):

A proposal:

Bernd, you can start cross-compiling all the libraries required by OWB; it's certainly less work for you, then Fab or another guy (Artur? ), can cross-compile Owb.

[0amigan0]

...
and BTW, somebody who is intresting on Port to 68k,  have fab and me ask about OWB, he install now amidevcpp and want it do in cygwin.i send him my full includes compilers with all libs i have.
...

That was me!
I gave up because my amiga programming knowledge is too limited.

If somebody want port it, i help.
but i do no work, when nobody want do something.he can also try himself to compile Cairo.

If u compile the libraries, maybe someone else is awaiting just this; open-source is NOT a one-man job (at least in linux world )

[0amigan0]

Bernd, have u heard Artur lately ? I tried to contact him, but didn't get an anwser.
He may have a go at porting Fab's version. Or he's secretly doing it already ?

[0amigan0]

...
I guess when you throttle your CPU that it is only 100 MHZ fast, then you notice too that OWB is lots slower.
...

Sorry, Bernd, Owb is not meant for real A4000 machines; owb 68k target are solutions like this one: http://xamiga.net/ on a modern PC.

Plus, I don't understand why u shouldn't believe Fab when he says that his MOS version is faster than AROS one ?
I renew the proposal: if u don't want to do all the job yourself, compile just the libraries, then Fab (if he wants) or others interested can cross-compile owb.

[0amigan0]

...

Have you ask zero hero if he compile Cairo ?.

What's the problem with Cairo ?
Or find someone else to compile it. Do u know other 68k devs, besides Artur, who can do it?

[0amigan0]

>Or find someone else to compile it. Do u know other 68k devs, besides Artur, who can do >it?

as i told zero_hero can do it,
also amistuff can do it, diegocr and many i forget.

Ask one of them (or all of them) to co-operate in the porting; more hands are better than one.

  But when MOS OWB is faster as OS4 OWB
...

Fab already said MOS OWB is faster. I say: let's trust his words.

the browser thats done on MOS or OS4 are done from the OS Developers.On a commercial  OS its important to have a better than nothing solution as fast as possible to sell more systems.

but developers that develop for fun, want do something better usefull or when they get money(see AROS Port)

And as can see, for 68k there are no bounties or something else as on AROS or OS4 or MOS.

Fab asked no money in order to do it.
Do u want to be paid ? Is this the "problem" ?

[0amigan0]

...

because i use winuae i can use windows browsers until the browser situation in amiga land look better.maybe MOS OWB get as MUI class some day.then its more easy portable

MOS OWB is *already* a MUI application (AFAIK).

[0amigan0]

...
but because simple Mail and Yam is a multiplatform AOS Program that run on 68k MOS OS4 AROS, it does not help when in amigaland no working together is possible and every side do their own browser.

OK, we all know this. Now, can u try, at least try to straight-compile the libraries required by Mos Owb ? Yes or No ?

If No, well... we can close here this thread.

[0amigan0]

@Fab:

You have a Linux cross-compile environment ready to go.
YOU might try your hand at it, if Bernd doesn't want to hear.

You surely will be idolized by us 68k freaks.

[0amigan0]

You forget that the target for that cross compiler is MorphOS PPC.

I didn't know that.
well, never mind.

[0amigan0]

@Fab:

I've found this cross-compiler setup guide http://cross.zerohero.se/os3.html
It mentions gcc 3.4.0; where can I found gcc 4 ? Are the tools he use, up-to-date ??

Can I use these mui 3.8 developer files http://aminet.net/dev/mui/mui38dev.lha ? Provided of course I can manage to setup the cross-environment.

[0amigan0]

@Fab:

Can I use this guide ( http://www.zerohero.se/cross/os3.html ) in order to setup a cross-compiler environment ??
Are the tools indicated, up-to-date ??