@Bernd_afa: OWB (68k) optimizations

[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

[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 )

[Crumb]

@thread

IMHO it would be better to start from Fab's MorphOS sources as he has done a wonderful port. You'll probably have to deal with some MUI4 methods and specific MorphOS functions but I think it's better than trying to update Joerg's port.

[unusedunused]

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

there are also some patches for windows/linux and OWB old versions, but nobody do actual OWB release for that system.

if so, i can maybe install a small linux on vmware and test OWB here in compare with Linux netsurf.

and btw, can you tell me page times, and links where OWB is faster ?
I see the video from Fab, here the load time of full page was good, but the time the page was show first and can scroll, was much longer as on netsurf and other browsers.this cant be problem of internet, because in this early stage very few data is need from Internet.

you should not test the old Netsurf for MOS on reuters or some other page.because this old Versions have Bug that redraw is done too often when there is a image skip delay > 1 sec.thats fix in newer versions 68k have but MOS not.

>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  )

>I gave up because my amiga programming knowledge is too limited.

amiga programming knowledge is mostly not need.you need Unix ccmake and C++ knowledge and much patience.

>The reasons for AROS OWB slowness were explained already.

You mean because of SDL ?

a browser is simple written, it render the page in ram with CPU commands.so the time the page is show first is same.maybe the transfer to GFX Card is in SDL only 4 fps but still here 4 fps are 0,25 sec, and we talk about several seconds that OWB show the page later as other browser.

also i see OWB on AROS show same fast as netsurf the whole page.but netsurf or other browser show 2-3* sooner the page.so i think its OWB dependent.

I dont know how can MOS version be faster.

using webkit is ok, but the trick is use it in best way asynchron and here it seem the OWBAL have some Problems.

So wy not accept this and report that Problem in OWB ML to discuss instead say OWB is fast and great ?

the result can only be a better OWB and it get more attractive and then come upto date Linux builds maybe.That OWB have no diskcache all browser have is also a Limit.

[Fab]

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

there are also some patches for windows/linux and OWB old versions, but nobody do actual OWB release for that system.

if so, i can maybe install a small linux on vmware and test OWB here in compare with Linux netsurf.

and btw, can you tell me page times, and links where OWB is faster ?
I see the video from Fab, here the load time of full page was good, but the time the page was show first and can scroll, was much longer as on netsurf and other browsers.this cant be problem of internet, because in this early stage very few data is need from Internet.

you should not test the old Netsurf for MOS on reuters or some other page.because this old Versions have Bug that redraw is done too often when there is a image skip delay > 1 sec.thats fix in newer versions 68k have but MOS not.

My video was actually quite slow comparing to what it can achieve on a proper link (or proper router). My router often gets unresponsive after a few days uptime. Yet, it's still much faster than what i could get from netsurf (both MorphOS and current 68k version).

>The reasons for AROS OWB slowness were explained already.

You mean because of SDL ?

a browser is simple written, it render the page in ram with CPU commands.so the time the page is show first is same.maybe the transfer to GFX Card is in SDL only 4 fps but still here 4 fps are 0,25 sec, and we talk about several seconds that OWB show the page later as other browser.

also i see OWB on AROS show same fast as netsurf the whole page.but netsurf or other browser show 2-3* sooner the page.so i think its OWB dependent.

I dont know how can MOS version be faster.

First, the plain SDL version is much slower at scrolling for the reason given earlier and then, regarding network transfer, it's mostly down to Curl usage (the default in OWB is not optimal for fast connections) and underlying TCP/IP stack too. In the MorphOS port, i also moved the whole network part to a dedicated thread to avoid blocking UI during DNS resolution or other network transfers, which effectively gives a better feeling too.

using webkit is ok, but the trick is use it in best way asynchron and here it seem the OWBAL have some Problems.

So wy not accept this and report that Problem in OWB ML to discuss instead say OWB is fast and great ?

the result can only be a better OWB and it get more attractive and then come upto date Linux builds maybe.That OWB have no diskcache all browser have is also a Limit.

I don't see why the availability of linux builds has anything to do with the quality of a program. And for your information, OWB is mostly an API layer above WebKit designed to port and use it more easily. There's no major functional difference with plain WebKit (which is used in Safari, Chrome and other browsers). And about diskcache, well, it's not a big these days, and there's a memory cache, so it's ok during a same session, anyway.

[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 ?

[Piru]

can you tell me page times, and links where OWB is faster ?

OWB is faster everywhere. And, yes, you can scroll down instantly.

Your benchmark methods are flawed I guess. You really ought to rule out internet connectivity issues from your tests. Free hint: Use local copies of web pages you test.

[amigadave]

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.

This is going to be one of my next projects.  Is a graphics card required in the Amiga to run VNC or Remote Desktop?  It would be nice if it was not and was usable on my A1200 w/IndivisionAGA display.

[unusedunused]

>Your benchmark methods are flawed I guess. You really ought to rule out internet >connectivity issues from your tests. Free hint: Use local copies of web pages you test.

I test too with cache proxy.but i get that not faster.
But your idea is good, maybe there is somewhere a benchmark HTML Page that can run from Harddrive and we can use for profiling browsers ?

I still dont understand wy OWB on 68k/ AROS need so much time to show a page without images.he need only load the main file parse and render it.

>Yet, it's still much faster than what i could get from netsurf (both MorphOS and current >68k version).

Is there on MOS a CPU throttle Software ?.I guess when you throttle your CPU that it is only 100 MHZ fast, then you notice too that OWB is lots slower.

When caches are small no 2. Level cache is here it slowdown more.
Maybe somebody can show a pageload on a efika at http://www.reuters.com or a file of that ?

I think with such a system you notice more the diffrence between OWB and netsurf.

I never see a fast C++ Program.dont forget C++ need lots of Overhead often copy data and this need larger caches.also using cairo increase cache misses.

and thats the reason that the CPU developers notice that a Cache > 1 Megabyte still give some speedup-

look at memory usage of OWB, thats another problem.it use lots mem.much more as netsurf.

[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.

[wawrzon]

as i said many times already os4 version of owb doesnt usually feel slower than os4 port of netsurf. i believe the opposite is the case. but then bernd has some principal views that one is unable to discuss with. one of them is c++ apps are slow, another oop is crap, and third owb is slower than netsurf, just to name a few. anyway being practically illiterate on the subject im not in a position to prove it wrong, can only voice an opinion based on practical experience.

[unusedunused]

>Plus, I don't understand why u shouldn't believe Fab when he says that his MOS version >is faster than AROS one ?

I see this video from Fab when load http://www.cnn.com and with AROS OWB i get same times(7-8 sec) to show page first.safari/chrome is lots faster around 2-3 sec.netsurf on my winuae need 4-5 sec.not optimal, but better as OWB on AROS, netsurf Team is working to add a cache.I think when its done, netsurf is speed up.

http://fabportnawak.free.fr/vids/cnn.mpg

sure he tell situation is not optimal, but normaly i think when doing a vídeo before first try once and then do it again to see if time is same and reproducable.and when his OWB really is so fast as firefox or other windows webkit browsers, then its clear notice if a browser need 2-3 sec to show a page or 7 sec.

Also you can see on Video, he do no reload.he type the name in, its possible that there is something on cache.

>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.

but still, it run slower because of slow internet,OWB load too much data from internet before he begin to show the page.also when press the page back button the load of the last page is same slow as a full load.this i see on 68k OWB and AROS OWB.

normaly when press page back the page is show in around 0,5 sec complete.On netsurf some pages are show fast some not, but as netsurf Team told teh cache is currently broken and is rewritten to do disk caching too.

>compile just the libraries, then Fab (if he wants) or others interested can cross-compile >owb.

Have you ask zero hero if he compile Cairo ?.Here are lots of libs for 68k

http://megacz.back2roots.org/portsbttr.html

I currently have more fun to enhance stormwizard to have same nice GUI look as MUI/zune programs.I get ok from Haage&Partner that i am allowed to enhance it and latest source from Alinea on 12.09 to release the lib and the GUI Editor for free.

I do the enhance with frameiclass so all OS or GUI Patches that support this frame types can get nicer system conform look and it depend on the prefs of the system and wizard library need no Skin preferences.

AFA use zune/MUI render features for frameiclass

Only not good Limit i must accept, the wizard source can not go opensource and i can not give it to other people and its currently not allow to make a AROS or MOS native Version.but lets see what the future bring, when the red versus blue war end, maybe the Limits change.

#define FRAME_DEFAULT      0
#define FRAME_BUTTON      1
#define FRAME_RIDGE      2
#define FRAME_ICONDROPBOX   3
4 is the prop container and 5 prob knob.OS4 support that too(See sdk)
what stormwizard GUI System is you can see on aminet(it currently not work) when you search for storm Wizard.

Here is a screenshot how Arteffect look on AFA with new wizard.library

http://www.daten-transport.de/?id=tBqry9fq5tF4

[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?

[unusedunused]

>as i said many times already os4 version of owb doesnt usually feel slower than os4 port >of netsurf. i believe the opposite is the case.

here you should bring time values.maybe OS4 netsurf is slower as 68k netsurf.

when use cnn page

after what time netsurf/ OWB on OS4 show the page first ?
and then the time netsurf 68k do.best is test 3 times

You have a PC, maybe you can compare AROS OWB and OS4 OWB.
OS4 OWB is not so enhanced as MOS OWB

But when MOS OWB is faster as OS4 OWB, then there should some values here.there was some OS4 MOS compare benchmarks, but no OWB compare benchmarks.

OWB on both system is able to render page from file, or maybe use a cache proxy.

sure i know best is when i test that on a MOS system, but i really dont want buy a MOS able System to see that there are no wonders possible

>What's the problem with Cairo ?

I dont know, i have not compile it.there is a AROS version from 2006 nobody use.and now when somebody really need cairo, he need the newest version, maybe here is change something.Or where is the source for MOS Cairo

Cairo is a backend and i think it need some platform dependent graphic stuff.

But i remember when firefox change to Cairo render it get too slower.I think best is use SDL and fix teh scroll problem by using HWsurface and sdl blit command.

maybe that give a speedboost and fewer memory usage on efika

[unusedunused]

>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.

i think on 68k there are more devs that can do it.But there seem no perfect browser for amiga currently here.

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.

[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" ?