directx viewer

Post by **Rudi De Vos** » 2005-08-24 10:02

Just wondering...does almost everybody has directx installed
on the PC they use as viewer ?

Using directX make sizing and update speed a lot faster and smoother.

redge · Post by **redge** » 2005-08-24 20:53

more faster than now for same computer 2 computers ?
I'm very impressive about your knowledge for improve UltraVNC speed faster and smoother, so great

easy answer, every windows since windows ME had DirectX already installed,

NT4 sp4 don't have it, but possible
2000 ready installed Direct
XP factory installed DirectX

lizard · Post by **lizard** » 2005-09-03 04:54

While I'd like to see one of that experiment, I still doubt the effect of it.
According to a profiled statistics, the drawing phase is rather not CPU sensitive process in the viewer activity any longer.
Once the BitBlt replacement for SetPixel/SetPixelV has been done, the drawing performance drastically improved to very high level.
Now a quick look into the code would show us that more than the drawing part, morphing bitmap data (such as RGB<->BGR, pallete<->24bit) appears likely to use more CPU.
If these kinds of signal processing, though, could be handled in DirectDraw HW acceleration, I think creating a DirectX viewer would be a good choice of speed improvement.
And just a tiny matter that some *ix people might start claiming about SDL compatibility, maybe?

Regards

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2005-09-03 13:29

Hm that sounds like a pretty good idea if it really speeds things up. Most Windows boxes at least have DirectX 5 on them, except NT4 as redge pointed out.

FYI, my Win98 SE virtual machine has DirectX 4 installed, and I didn't put it on there. So it seems even 98SE has it.

-Ares

Post by **Rudi De Vos** » 2005-09-04 16:45

Directx viewer is even more cpu intensive then blit...

Theoritical it should be less. Possible it has to do with the fact that for each update, foreground/background buffer is switched.

We keep it to blit for now