NetSurf 3.2 68k released

[apj]

Hi Nova,

I have replied next day I got your message.
Have you seen it?

[apj]

New AGA version is avaiable for testing.

@Oldsmobile_Mike

How is version 3.4 working for you ?

[apj]

New version 3.4 Dev 2 is on aminet.

[apj]

I have updated my version too.
Most important change is new Preferences made with MUI.
I made it with MUIBuilder which is great for noobs.
Other than this ttf and non-ttf fonts are now merged into one binary.

Libs and sources has been updated to newest versions.
I've compiled everything with gcc 3.4 because I read it generates better 68k code and produces smaller exe.

Like some users said this version works best under emulated environment.

Archive available from aminet

[Xebec]

I have updated my version too.
Most important change is new Preferences made with MUI.
I made it with MUIBuilder which is great for noobs.
Other than this ttf and non-ttf fonts are now merged into one binary.

Libs and sources has been updated to newest versions.
I've compiled everything with gcc 3.4 because I read it generates better 68k code and produces smaller exe.

Like some users said this version works best under emulated environment.

Archive available from aminet

Hi there - is there any version available that doesn't require a FPU?  I see in the changelog - 3.4dev does not require ixemul.library -- but the latest version on aminet does appear to require ixemul.library..   which requires a FPU .

Just trying to get Netsurf working on my humble ACA1221 (68020@28 mhz, 32MB ram, no FPU) A1200 .

Thanks!
John H

[chris]

Hi there - is there any version available that doesn't require a FPU?  I see in the changelog - 3.4dev does not require ixemul.library -- but the latest version on aminet does appear to require ixemul.library..   which requires a FPU .

Just trying to get Netsurf working on my humble ACA1221 (68020@28 mhz, 32MB ram, no FPU) A1200 .

Thanks!
John H

My version was working without an FPU, but at some point it decided it needed one.
I can't figure out what I need to do to gcc to get it to default to "-m68020-60 -msoft-float", that should fix it as I think one of the dependencies is building with the wrong options.

[utri007]

My version was working without an FPU, but at some point it decided it needed one.
I can't figure out what I need to do to gcc to get it to default to "-m68020-60 -msoft-float", that should fix it as I think one of the dependencies is building with the wrong options.

If you disable FPU, please consider to make two different versions.

With 68040 FPU makes big difference, compared to 68060. With 68040 and FPU, Netsurf is actually useable. Disabling FPU makes it about 30% more snail. With 68020/30 with FPU or not, it woun't be useable or at least requires a lots of patience.

[Acill]

My version was working without an FPU, but at some point it decided it needed one.
I can't figure out what I need to do to gcc to get it to default to "-m68020-60 -msoft-float", that should fix it as I think one of the dependencies is building with the wrong options.

Why don't the two of you join forces and get a unified version out? Seems silly to have two people working on two versions of the same thing.

[wawrzon]

If you disable FPU, please consider to make two different versions.

With 68040 FPU makes big difference, compared to 68060. With 68040 and FPU, Netsurf is actually useable. Disabling FPU makes it about 30% more snail. With 68020/30 with FPU or not, it woun't be useable or at least requires a lots of patience.

making multiple binaries simply adds up to the mess. 30% is not a big deal what concenrs usability. if some page loads two minutes it doesnt make it critical if it needs three. the binary should be compiled against existing libraries, in this case the math libs, and the system should decide, if it has fpu or if it needs to use soft floats. then people can simply try to use netsurf with a 68020 and see if it suiets them.

[utri007]

making multiple binaries simply adds up to the mess. 30% is not a big deal what concenrs usability. if some page loads two minutes it doesnt make it critical if it needs three. the binary should be compiled against existing libraries, in this case the math libs, and the system should decide, if it has fpu or if it needs to use soft floats. then people can simply try to use netsurf with a 68020 and see if it suiets them.

You are right, 2 or 3 minits is about a same. But with 040 it matter of useability, if loading time rises from 40 seconds to 60, it is huge leap of patience. 40 seconds is OK, minit start to be long time? With 060 difference ist not that big, just few seconds.

Could it be possible to make it support tool types? So that FPU could be enabled/disabled that way.

Though, one question is Chris still interested to develop Netsurf further? There has been extreme low interest to Netsurf. Arthur's version is OK under emulation, but not with real Amiga. I ques that both of them has very few users. No feedback, no bug repoerts, etc

I gotta say that I'm actually very surprized how fast Chris' build is. I thought that something like 2x slower would be maximum speed. It starts to be as fast as iBrowse is when downloading this site.

[wawrzon]

Could it be possible to make it support tool types? So that FPU could be enabled/disabled that way.

either tool types or some proper perfs file or program (i know about the one in resources, but not everybody gets that, even if it contained an appropriate entry)

Though, one question is Chris still interested to develop Netsurf further? There has been extreme low interest to Netsurf. Arthur's version is OK under emulation, but not with real Amiga. I ques that both of them has very few users. No feedback, no bug repoerts, etc

thats normal. you need to accustom to this, its only not that visible on other systems, since amiga and especailly whatever spinn off it has really very few (able) users.

I gotta say that I'm actually very surprized how fast Chris' build is. I thought that something like 2x slower would be maximum speed. It starts to be as fast as iBrowse is when downloading this site.

downloading or rendering?

[Xebec]

Chris - any chance you'd have an older non-FPU version on hand?  I don't need the latest, just wanted to play around a bit..  Greatly appreciated ..

(Figuring it'll be a while before Vampire A1200 is out and makes web browsing.. a lot better!)

[chris]

Chris - any chance you'd have an older non-FPU version on hand?  I don't need the latest, just wanted to play around a bit..  Greatly appreciated ..

(Figuring it'll be a while before Vampire A1200 is out and makes web browsing.. a lot better!)

Maybe on my CF card, but I think I deleted it, and I don't have an easy way to check whether it's an FPU version or not!

[chris]

You are right, 2 or 3 minits is about a same. But with 040 it matter of useability, if loading time rises from 40 seconds to 60, it is huge leap of patience. 40 seconds is OK, minit start to be long time? With 060 difference ist not that big, just few seconds.

How are you even measuring this?  My build of NetSurf is built with soft-float as are all libraries, it's only some of the dependencies that might not be.  There's very little floating point maths in NetSurf anyway AFAIK.

Could it be possible to make it support tool types? So that FPU could be enabled/disabled that way.

No, that's not viable.

Though, one question is Chris still interested to develop Netsurf further?

I've done about as much as I can with the OS3 frontend, which is more than I really had interest to do in the first place.

When I update OS4 frontend the OS3 frontend automatically gets the changes (unless it's to do with new OS features), which was the point of deriving the OS3 build from my code and keeping it all together (rather than forking it).  Core changes are obviously going to apply to both versions too.

Anything further I'd appreciate somebody else working on.

[utri007]

Test results are from that old build wich you made for someone who asked.

[chris]

Test results are from that old build wich you made for someone who asked.

IIRC that was the one where I built GCC using a "no FPU" switch which wasn't documented anywhere to say it would work on 68k target, and nobody told me whether or not it worked without an FPU, but I got the impression it still needed one.  God knows what that was doing.  The current build is soft-float still, but without that iffy switch.