LCDInfo.com

Here's couple IO drivers that can be used instead of DLPortIO:

WinIO from http://www.internals.com
I have found WinIO to be about 50% faster than DLPortIO in my tests.

http://www.geekhideout.com/iodll.shtml
I haven't personally tried this yet.

There are also many others that might be worth trying.

Hmm...I have had a brief look at these, but am not sure how to use or install them.

I looks like the heave to be called from within the code, and seeing as I am not a C programmer I would have no idea where to start.

But if they work better, then I would be keen to try them somehow.

Marty

Oh looks nice.
If they are really faster it would be great.
It would save a lot of cputime...

Are programming something where to use them ?

To use WinIO for example:
-first initialize the driver using the InitializeWinIO() function.
-then you can use the GetPortVal() and SetPortVal() functions to write/get values to/from ports.

The WinIO package includes a help file describing the use and it also has some examples in C and VB.

I think everyone needs to try themselves if they are faster in their application. But in my tests WinIO was about 50% faster than DLPortIO. Like the fullscreen animations with 240x128 T6963C display: with DLPortIO I was able to get about 11 fps and with WinIO it was something like 17 fps. This was with busy flag checking enabled.

No. I mean I don't know how to use them with LCDInfo. The DLPort drivers install themselves via an executable.

I don't know to to get them to work with LCDInfo.

Marty

If it really is so much faster, this would be a great driver for LiQuiD-MP3 as well With a high framerate, DLPortIO lets the CPU usage go through the roof and that's not good Let's hope WinIO uses less!

I have 2 questions though;
1) is there a great difference in CPU usage with DLPortIO running WinIO on a P200 system?
2) Is WinIO fast enough for busy flag checking to be usefull? DLPortIO isn't and if WinIO is, this could greatly improve my SED133x driver.

_________________
Creator of LiQuiD-MP3

Tough questions

Someone needs to test that. I think I have a P200 system somewhere here - I would just have to do some test programs for testing. Unfortunately I've only tested the maximum throughput of the driver so I can't say anything about the CPU usage yet. I used WinIO in the 0.4 version of LCDInfo but as I also rewrote other things it's hard to say what caused the decrease in CPU usage. At least the CPU usage was lower than in the 0.3.2 version

They can't be used with the 0.3.2 version of LCDInfo as it requires changes to the code to use different IO drivers. That's why this thread is here in the Development forum

WinIO was used in the 0.4 version but that is never going to be released. Instead I've been working on the 0.5 lately.