LimpidClock 68k - a clock cycle eater?

[paul1981]

I finally got around to spicing up my A1200's Workbench towards the end of last year, and I've almost finished and got everything how I like it (although things can always improve or change) but anyway, although I love the look and functionality of LimpidClock, it appears that it eats 1.5% of my CPU. So as of yet I'm not prepared to use it.
It's eating 1.5% even with the clock face removed (all I actually wanted it for was the calender) - so basically, it's sitting there on an 8 colour Workbench screen (yes, MWB!) and it's doing nothing but displaying a calander and despite this it's eating a lot of clock cycles (no pun intended) haha.

Now I think I know the reason why the default task priority is set to -20 on this program...

To me, it's unacceptible as I'm running an 060 at 66MHz.
Without LimpidClock running I get idle states of 0.2%-0.4%, then with it I get an idle state of 2% or more.
I've confirmed this with Scout, and Executive CPU Meters.

I've fiddled with all available options in the menu, and nothing seems to make any difference (other than getting rid of the clock face which I have already done...as with it enabled it eats even more of my CPU).

Does anyone know of a similar type of calander program that I can use instead of this (has to look good, be transparent etc). Or, does anyone know why it's so CPU heavy, or a possible solution?  I thought maybe it's doing transparency calculations or something, but that's not needed is it because I'm running AGA, not a 16 or 24 bit screen...

Any thoughts? Cheers...

[paul1981]

Thank you all for some insight there.  I've just done some more tests.
I've found that if you use a bigger font for the calender (ie the window gets larger) then it eats more CPU than a smaller font (smaller window).
With a large font (size 20 something) it eats up to 5% of my CPU if the clock face is displayed as well.

Earlier when I said the priority defaulted at -20, it doesn't (I apologise, I don't know where that came from) it actually defaults to +1.  Anyway, the priority doesn't seem to make any difference.
The strange thing is I did a real test rendering a Vista scene and it didn't appear to impact on the rendering time at all.  Maybe that's Executive doing it's magic?  Or maybe it's not really using 1.5% - 5% and it's a fake reading?  Or a misleading reading?

How does LimpidClock affect slower systems such as 020/030?  Is anyone using it on those configurations?

[paul1981]

I do know how it works, but I'm just reluctant to use software that  doesn't do it "the Amiga way", which to me has always meant efficiency.
TolleUhr for instance doesn't even nudge my CPU meters...you wouldn't  know it was running.  Shame it doesn't have a calender though.

Let's say for instance, that all the tasks running were eating more CPU  than they should be, let's say you have 40 or 50 tasks (I have 39 tasks  after a clean boot), just imagine if all of these were as inefficient as  LimpidClock...
Yes, I know that the majority of those tasks are waiting and doing  nothing, but I'm just trying to make a point that it's always better to  have better efficiency.

Maybe I'm being tight!  Or Silly even!  Amiga's are not quad cores, we  need efficient software, and I just want to let other Amiga users know  that LimpidClock has a problem.
Maybe Bloodline is right, I'll have to write my own! :crazy:

[paul1981]

I run it here on an 030/50 and AGA. I run it at -20 IIRC, and it's never had any issues. I haven't measured how much CPU time it uses but it doesn't matter since whenever anything else needs those cycles, it gets them instead of the clock...

Try it on 0 or above, I'd guess your system would slow considerably. Your Amiga may even go backwards!