Author: Ratko V Tomic
Date: 12:35:02 10/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
> Does the Rebel DOS-like environment and all the other things I > mentioned bug anyone but me? Well, it is indeed more convenient to run straight Windows program and these also generally look better. But the price for Windows convenience and looks is at least 5% in CPU performance (likely more with all the stuff people run under Windows, and especially on newer CPU's dependent on on-chip cache for their high speed [the CPU is internally clocked 4-6 times faster then when accessing the external memory) , the flushing of the CPU cache with interrupt driven Windows threads can make much bigger difference with programs well tunded to fit their core code in the 128-256K on-chip cache memory), plus greatly reduced hash tables. If you have 64Mb RAM on your machine, in Windows 98 you can safely use 32Mb without worrying about disk swapping. In DOS you get 60-63 Mb for hash tables. Which means you can have twice as large time limit before the table fills up. And with programs which keep hash tables between moves, thus can make good use of any amount of RAM you have, it makes diffgerence at any time control. So, it's a tradeoff. If you're running the program in a competition, you would want every last bit of performance, so you would go with a DOS program (provided it is otherwise the same engine, i.e. it isn't an older 16-bit code under DOS and newer 32 bit code under Windows as with Hiarcs 7/7.32, but even here the 16-bit DOS version seems to be a bit stronger). There is also a somewhat needless low standard for the DOS UI, i.e. I find it somewhat annoying to look at the bare bone low res VGA graphics, when the typical VGA card of the last 3-4 years can support twice as high resolution. So switching on the same machine between, say Hiarcs 7.32 and Rebel 10 is a distracting, esepcially on laptops where LCD screens don't have naturally stretchable pixels for different resolutions but have fixed size sharp square pixels. On such screens low res means you either have to watch a tiny image in the center of the screen or with pixel doubler (which replicates each pixel with 2x2 sharp pixels), the picture will fill up the screen but you get a very ugly jagged edges and large, quite visible, squares for pixels. All that is completely needless annoyance, given how much effort these folks spend on their programs, it is a comparatively trivial matter to provide a board and piece sets in several common resolutions and let user pick the right one for their screen. As for scaling window, I don't care about it as long as I can have the largest square board with matching piece sizes that fits on the screen (and no program gives that, unfortunately, they all have to have some stuff below and above, cutting down on the max square). CM6k can magnify the board close to the max possible, but it keeps its 2D & 3D pieces always the same size, so it is a useless capability there (does anyone ever try out these things over there?). Fritz UI has a fairly large max board with scalable pieces, but still not as large as CM6k (or as the screen will allow), they have to have oversized buttons and other items below and above, which could well be on the sides (or activated when needed over something else). Rebel 10 has a large board option, but it has an ugly deformed piece set for it (compared to its default size pieces). So I haven't seen yet a program, DOS or Windows, which uses the max screen square and the matching piece sizes. Of other visual features, 3D set is for me useless, since I tend to use these programs to play chess not as a screen blanker or a visual artwork exhibit. I think with a little bit of more attention to DOS interface (and an artist plus a few chessplayers who actually use the program helping in the design), you could have as good looking set (not necessarily freely scalable but in several discrete sizes) and better performance for DOS program than for the Windows versions. But, looking at the priorities of various companies, that won't happen. You can get looks or you can get brains, and you can't have both. I personally would pay for upgrade of DOS Rebel 10 (which I like playing more than other programs) just for the higher res pieces and a full size board (with decently shaped pieces), without any other improvements. But Rebel Century doesn't seem to have either. (And I agree with you, their database algorithms could use some optimizations as well.)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.