«

On Jul 17, 11:06*am, "David" <quietman1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Skybuck Flying" *wrote in message
> news:7190d$4e2294fd$5419acc3$ b.home.nl...
>
> What makes you believe that the documentation will help me ?

> You see this is why I don't block this guy, some of his comments are
> hilarious.

His comment would be _more_ hilarious if the documentation that came
with video cards these days said anything more than "avoid static
electricity when you plug it in".

It is true that, as I noted in my post, some basic understanding of
what OpenGL is and does would clear up the problem. And, if one knows
where to look online, there is a lot of information about OpenGL,
including documentation by the open-source project behind it.

But if one is looking *there*, there is quite a wealth of material
available, and without the basic understanding needed to know *where
to begin looking*, it's entirely possible he would fail to be helped
for another reason.

John Savard

Nono,

It does come as surprise, since Windows 95 with 80486 with 33 Megahertz
works faster than the virtual machine so something must have been wrong...

I should do some benchmarks to see how many instructions windows 95 can
execute on a real machine versus a virtual machine on a modern computer.

And then some more tests of windows x64 pro in virtual machine.

Just the fact that windows x64 pro runs in a virtual machine is a good
indication that the virtual machine is actually quite fast and at least has
sufficient ram available.

So either it's the ram which makse x64 run fast, or it's the processor not
sure which.

If it would be the ram then even a 80486 might be able to run such a big
operating system.

But I don't think so... I would think the 33 mhz is simply not enough and
would take ages.

Thus conclusion: somethings wrong if an opengl app works decently on a 486
with no real hardware accelleration, just simple super vga, and then
suddenly it runs slow in a virtual machine

My best bet is:

The opengl software does some strange pixel format conversions, or it simply
has a really really slow pixel copy routine for glCopyPixels.

Which in itself is an interesting question:

Why would glCopyPixels still be fast on a real 80486 machine (with tseng
4000 graphics card) ? At least I thought it was...

Perhaps it was slow too... but I don't think so... I have seen either opengl
apps of my run on windows 95 and they had no problems with graphics... but
perhaps it used the swapbuffers at the time instead of the glCopyPixels...
so perhaps I should try again, just to make sure if glCopyPixels is fast or
slow on real svga hardware !

Bye,
Skybuck.

In article <gEEUp.22823$2>, "David" <> wrote:
>"Skybuck Flying" wrote in message
>news:7190d$4e2294fd$5419acc3$1. nb.home.nl...
>
>What makes you believe that the documentation will help me ?
>
>Bye,
> Skybuck.
>
>

Dude, getting laid by a woman WOULDN'T help you!

W dniu 2011-07-17 09:53, Skybuck Flying pisze:
> What makes you believe that the documentation will help me ?

Nothing will help You.

But Your lobotomy will help us all.
Will You do it?

--
Arivald

fungus <> writes:
> ... because reading documentation just isn't the way
> starbucky rolls.

.... and I suspect it's a pretty good bet that he rolls.

-miles

--
"Nah, there's no bigger atheist than me. Well, I take that back.
I'm a cancer screening away from going agnostic and a biopsy away
from full-fledged Christian." [Adam Carolla]