@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.

[unusedunused]

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.

The source is outdate and OWB core is change much since some years.If you wish i can send you the source(write PN) or ask Jörg.but you can nothing do with it.its way toooo slow and too old.the OWB team have also speedup it

on AROS can see, OWB is slow, i dont believe it is faster on MOS or OS4, because Cairo cost too more performance.,OWB have no diskcache.On netsurf they are working on diskcache.

Its always good to wait instead spend much work, maybe the red versus blue war end in 1-2 years and working together is better possible of the few existing amiga devs

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

[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 ??

[Fab]

The source is outdate and OWB core is change much since some years.If you wish i can send you the source(write PN) or ask Jörg.but you can nothing do with it.its way toooo slow and too old.the OWB team have also speedup it

on AROS can see, OWB is slow, i dont believe it is faster on MOS or OS4, because Cairo cost too more performance.,OWB have no diskcache.On netsurf they are working on diskcache.

Its always good to wait instead spend much work, maybe the red versus blue war end in 1-2 years and working together is better possible of the few existing amiga devs

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

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.

[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 ?

[Fab]

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 ?

On that Xeon PC/Linux I use for crosscompilation, it needs about 30 minutes to compile OWB from scratch (a bit more when SVG is enabled). On my Pegasos2, I tried it once, and it needed 6 hours (but gcc I/O is better handled on Linux, anyway, so it's not surprising to see such a difference).

Anyway, on a very recent machine, it would take 15-20 minutes, i guess. I can't comment about Windows, though.

[alexh]

If you want to access the web from your Amiga and you have another PC on the network (Mac, Linux, Windows etc.) there are tools that will let a networked Amiga open a web-browser on those machines and display it on the Amiga screen.

With the Amiga hard drives mounted via SAMBA on the host machine (so you can save directly to the Amiga) it looks and feels almost like a native browser only much faster and upto date.

Just google for Amiga & VNC or Remote Desktop.

I have a HP NAS drive (EX470) running Windows Server 2003 which is always on and I click on an icon on the Amiga and a remote FireFox 3.5.6 window opens. Because it is remote everything just works like it would on a PC, Flash, Shockwave, Java etc.

[Piru]

If you want to access the web from your Amiga and you have another PC on the network (Mac, Linux, Windows etc.) there are tools that will let a networked Amiga open a web-browser on those machines and display it on the Amiga screen.

With the Amiga hard drives mounted via SAMBA on the host machine (so you can save directly to the Amiga) it looks and feels almost like a native browser only much faster and upto date.

Just google for Amiga & VNC or Remote Desktop.

I have a HP NAS drive (EX470) running Windows Server 2003 which is always on and I click on an icon on the Amiga and a remote FireFox 3.5.6 window opens. Because it is remote everything just works like it would on a PC, Flash, Shockwave, Java etc.

That's too slow for my taste.

[unusedunused]

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

If OWB is faster, then wy netsurf is a google summer of Code projecrt since 2 years and there is no OWB Version in a Linux distri ?.the big disadvantage of netsurf is currently missung java script but its in Linux Distri.

netsurf is in Linux distri.Wy not OWB ?

http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2041

maybe the time of render of a complete page is slower or same as OWB, but thats not the important.The important is to get the page as fast as possible vissible and can scroll and click on links.

netsurf have some settings for number of fetchers and the time it refresh.Here users can tweak in config file and get better results on

>On that Xeon PC/Linux I use for crosscompilation, it needs about 30 minutes to compile >OWB from scratch

That sound good.You have 2 core and how many GHZ your system have ?

then i can assume that a Core I7 with 2,66 GHZ can maybe compile it in 12 minutes ?

I have too some time ago compile OWB on my AMD64 3000+
I have compile it 70% sucessfull, but most demotivation was that every time when i type make, the build system check for about over 1 minute to find out on what files it should continue to compile and then it give me a compile error when something is wrong.my ram was enough.

and for that i have not the patience.In this time a netsurf rebuild work and when i change some files in netsurf, a new version can get in 5 sec and a compile error in this file can see in 2 sec.
maybe that slowdown is cygwin relatet ?
when you change a file in OWB on your Linux System, how many seconds it need to detect what file need compile.

>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.

Yes that i believe, but the Reason is, because SDL not support good OWB.OWB use SW_SURFACE and so scroll is done in CPU.

netsurf too use in old versions cpu for scroll, but newest source Version use now SDL to scroll and on HW surface it use the blitter.and as can see in netsurf thread here, its lots faster now when the Pixel format fit ok.

here is the source can easy see  in the diff output

http://source.netsurf-browser.org/trunk/libnsfb/src/frontend_sdl.c?r1=9719&r2=9720

[Piru]

If OWB is faster, then wy netsurf is a google summer of Code projecrt since 2 years and there is no OWB Version in a Linux distri ?.the big disadvantage of netsurf is currently missung java script but its in Linux Distri.

netsurf is in Linux distri.Wy not OWB ?

Why would it be any indication of anything whether something is in specific linux distribution or not?

That's just plain silly.

maybe the time of render of a complete page is slower or same as OWB, but thats not the important.The important is to get the page as fast as possible vissible and can scroll and click on links.

That's your opinion. I don't agree. Personally I like to have working javascript. I like to have snappy scrolling, too.

netsurf have some settings for number of fetchers and the time it refresh.Here users can tweak in config file and get better results on

Such things should be automatic. The end user should not be forced to bother with such things.

I have too some time ago compile OWB on my AMD64 3000+
I have compile it 70% sucessfull, but most demotivation was that every time when i type make, the build system check for about over 1 minute to find out on what files it should continue to compile and then it give me a compile error when something is wrong.my ram was enough.

and for that i have not the patience.

Seriously? You really need to find something else to do than program then.

In this time a netsurf rebuild work and when i change some files in netsurf, a new version can get in 5 sec and a compile error in this file can see in 2 sec.
maybe that slowdown is cygwin relatet ?
when you change a file in OWB on your Linux System, how many seconds it need to detect what file need compile.

How on earth would this matter at all? The build is automatic anyway, why would you need to know which files need to be compiled? I just don't get what your problem here is.

[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.

[unusedunused]

Why would it be any indication of anything whether something is in specific linux distribution or not?

thats show its intresting for users to use.The fact that OWB is not available in enhanced way for other than MOS OS4 /AROS and is also not listet on wikipedia, do not motivate me for OWB.The only running OWB i can see is on AROS.and here it is 2-3* slower to show the page as soon as possible.

there are lots of browser out you can see too, maybe there are some better browsers here,and thats the reason wy there is no OWB Version in distri.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser

I dont want spend much work for a better than nothing solution, i want the best solution, so that when i surf on winuae its same fast as on firefox native.and that is possible with netsurf.and when they add the filecache, then it go faster.

sure java script is miss, and OWB is for MOS OS4 AROS users great, because better wait 5 sec instead of cant show page.but when i see that the page is show on 2 sec(the page layout is done and can scroll) on my windows box with all browsers, i think its not usefull to spend lots work in OWB before the speed get same as other browsers.

>That's your opinion. I don't agree. Personally I like to have working javascript.

I like too have Java script and problem of later show on OWB have nothing to do with Java script.I deactivate it for test in AROS OWB, but get not faster.

>Such things should be automatic. The end user should not be forced to bother with such >things.

but i dont see if that is on OWB and other browsers do something automatic.current browsers are design that they run ok on a System with at least 600 MHZ.and do a rerender every 0.5 sec

When a system is slower then the rerender should be not so often, to slow not too much down.

often rerender increase the full Page load time.
and here its clear wy OWB can show a page faster complete as other browsers.because OWB show the page the first time later as other browsers.

but its always more usefull to show a page as soon as the full text is load and all layout data is here.

then a user can begin read the page, scroll, or click on links.
so in praxis the browser is faster to use, even if the full page load(upto the last promotion banner is load)take longer.

I like want a browse rthat show a page first after 3 sec and if he load the page in 12 sec full i think its lots better as a browser that show the page first after 6 sec and show full in 9 sec.

[unusedunused]

>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.

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.
 
because software grow and when its really need and begin then too port, you get a more upto date version.

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.

and here are most libs in OWB need.

[Piru]

thats show its intresting for users to use.

Huh? So you seriously think just because there's software X in linux distros it somehow measures popularity of that said software?

The fact that OWB is not available in enhanced way for other than MOS OS4 /AROS and is also not listet on wikipedia, do not motivate me for OWB.

But you do know better than that. Instead you just play stupid.

The only running OWB i can see is on AROS.and here it is 2-3* slower to show the page as soon as possible.

OWB is faster than Netsurf here. The reasons for AROS OWB slowness were explained already.

I dont want spend much work for a better than nothing solution, i want the best solution, so that when i surf on winuae its same fast as on firefox native.and that is possible with netsurf.and when they add the filecache, then it go faster.

Best solution for your tastes perhaps, but IMO any browser without javascript is totally useless.

sure java script is miss, and OWB is for MOS OS4 AROS users great, because better wait 5 sec instead of cant show page.but when i see that the page is show on 2 sec(the page layout is done and can scroll) on my windows box with all browsers, i think its not usefull to spend lots work in OWB before the speed get same as other browsers.

I don't know what you're talking about. At least MorphOS OWB is instant here.

I like too have Java script and problem of later show on OWB have nothing to do with Java script.I deactivate it for test in AROS OWB, but get not faster.

This argument is null and void. Netsurf still lacks javascript.

And I still don't see any performance problems in OWB compared to Netsurf. You must've been benchmarking wrong things again.

[x303]

and is also not listet on wikipedia, do not motivate me for OWB.

Eh, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origyn_Web_Browser


It would be nice to have owb simply because you can't live without javascript anymore. And we can't wait a few years on it to appear on netsurf.


x303