So you have all 16MB and the speed issue is solved? I'll need to try again. I had also planned to experiment with the newlife drivers with my Mobius to see what happens. https://www.savagetaylor.com/2023/01/17/68k-accelerators-newlife-computer-corporation/Alright.
Btw, got System 7.1 International + System Update 3.0 + GemStart 3.0 + Virtual to work now. What I did wrong the first time was to not select Mobius under install. So System 7.1 International works too, but not French and Norwegian.
What benchmark software did you use?So you have all 16MB and the speed issue is solved? I'll need to try again. I had also planned to experiment with the newlife drivers with my Mobius to see what happens. https://www.savagetaylor.com/2023/01/17/68k-accelerators-newlife-computer-corporation/
I suspect they're doing some dumb string compare on the version string.What benchmark software did you use?
Also, just to make it clear: You need to use System 7.0.1/7.1 US, British or International for this to work.
It kinda looked like it worked on Norwegian System 6 actually, so maybe the language problem only exists on 7.x.
Ah sorry, I didn't see any benchmarks in their post or link. I assumed it was misdirected.I meant to ask Realitystorm, but I guess it's good to try the one you used as well.
Anyway, I came to think of something.... What if the memory benchmark only resides in the lower 4MB, so that it won't test the region that is handled by the MMU (or swap file if Virtual didn't work correctly with the accelerator)?
13.4MB/s?Memory benchmark results are in for Norton System Info 3.2.1:
Compact Virtual (proper install, 16MB RAM): 10,9MB/s
No Compact Virtual (4MB RAM): 13,4MB/s
Compact Virtual "faulty" install (wrong accelerator selected, w/ 16MB swap): 13,4MB/s
Conclusion: This tool is not suitable for testing this, so I'm waiting for the tool Realitystorm used.
Not using compact virtual doesn't stop it using fast 32bit RAM at 25MHz.Can you tell me how to use the tool, then? And did I blame you? Nope.
I apologise - I suspect it is an issue with different dialects of English, but a significant number of posts feel like veiled attacks on my person - it would have felt less so if you'd asked why you were seeing something unexpected, rather than dismissing the software I'd uploaded to help you, out of hand. As well as bluntly telling me that you weren't talking to me when I originally shared it.You are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say and achieve, blaming me for things I haven't done, and trying to make me look like a fool. I never claimed that not using Compact Virtual means it's using slow memory. You are putting words in my mouth, and it's starting to get annoying.
The reason I say this tool is not suitable for this test, is because it doesn't show on the results if HDD RAM swapping is used on my machine's configuration. As I wrote, I tested this with Virtual using an actual swap file. What I want to find out, is the real performance once RAM beyond the original 4MB barrier is used. And I guess I have to say this: Yes, I know this 4MB section is not slow!
The benchmark tool Realitystorm used was actually capable of telling that the RAM performance was extremely slow after he installed Compact Virtual (maybe the wrong way?) and set the slider to 16MB. This suggests, to my understanding, that the tool he used is testing memory performance over a wider block of allocated memory, so that RAM actually got swapped to disk, and as such would show up as very low speed numbers. This would also be a good test for me with no HDD swapping used, because I want to make sure that the RAM speed stays consistant once the MMU starts redirecting addresses. Anyway, the lower speed (10,9MB/s) when Virtual is using extended RAM is already suggesting (AFAIK) that the MMU is redirecting addresses at all times, but I want to use the benchmark tool he used just to get some more data on this.
What benchmark software did you use?