From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2005-11-30 16:38:45
|
On Wednesday 30 Nov 2005 15:26, Richard Cooper wrote: > > (a) whether it makes a difference to the CPU load > > Yes, it's only 5% with that patch. According to a previous message I > wrote, 1.0 made it use 13%, so that's actually quite an improvement. That's interesting. That's CPU used by X, yes? > > (b) whether it makes the window noticeably more flickery during > > editing and playback. > > The blue line flickers in playback, it's perfectly useable, just flickery. So we appear to have a choice of 26% CPU without flicker, or 5% CPU with flicker. Unless we can work out how to make the lower-CPU one not flicker without double-buffering everything. Which is probably possible. I have a slower machine at home which I'll have to try this out on -- it's obviously hard to evolve fixes for things you can't see, and on my usual development machines I see neither the heavy CPU usage nor the flicker. Chris |