Re: Benchmarks VFP6 - FPW 2.6

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: Craig Berntson (iamcraig_at_iamcraigberntson.com)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:39:44 -0700

Absolutely not true. You can't compare on the same machine unless you have
minimums for the new OS. I have a test box running Windows 2003. It's an old
laptop, 1Gig PIII with 512 Meg RAM. Boots just fine.

Queries with newer versions of VFP are definately faster than previous
versions, including FPW. 

-- 
Craig Berntson
MCSD, Visual FoxPro MVP
www.craigberntson.com
Salt Lake City Fox User Group
www.slcfox.org
www.foxcentral.net
"Ook" <usenet@nospam.emberts.com> wrote in message 
news:e%23CkpD1wEHA.3416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> We've worked a lot on performance tuning an app that was converted from 
> FPW
> to VFP, and one of the things we found is that VFP is a real pig in the 
> GUI
> compared to FPW. VFP has a lot of overhead when it comes to simple things
> like instantiating a simple form, compared to FPW.
>
>>Hasn't Microsoft told us that VFP6 is faster than its predecessors .....
>
> They lied. They had no clue when they wrote that. It's like Microsoft
> telling use that each version of Windows will boot faster then it's
> predecessors. Crap. Load Win9x and WinXP on the same box, time it. Win9x 
> is
> done in a fraction of the time it takes XP to load. The other day I put
> Win311 on an old 2gb drive just for the fun of it. It loads in seconds.
> Win2003 Server? Go eat breakfast while it boots. The problem here is that
> marketing droids write this hype, not technical people that know better.
> They assume that because we have faster computers, Windows will boot 
> faster.
> XP on my P4/3GHz is of course faster then Win98 on my PIII/800. They also
> assume that most of the user ar JPS (Just Plain Stupid).
>
> "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com> wrote in message
> news:10on6ttkc5thn01@news.supernews.com...
>> What you said is not entirely true.
>>
>> FPD is great speedwise within its limits.
>>
>> If you need to create indexes on large tables and you have a machine with
>> 1.5Gb of RAM for example, VFP will use it all and really get those 
>> indexes
>> created much faster. I have some indexing jobs that took an hour in FPD,
>> took 30 minutes with VFP and 512 Mb RAM, and took less than 10 minutes
> with
>> VFP and 1.5Gb RAM.
>>
>> I would imagine that the amount of memory also effects other data
> intensive
>> tasks although indexing is the only one that I've acutally benchmarked.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeff
>> "Josh Assing" <xjoshx@jassing.com> wrote in message
>> news:4jqlo0tmlcr5qqab3gd98u7lm67k3f47jf@4ax.com...
>> > and if you run some simple tests FPD blows FPW out of hte water for
> speed.
>> >
>> > VFP is slower "by straight comparrison" but it wasn't written for a
>> > limited
>> > win9x box with limited resources and CPU ....
>> >
>> > And anytime you 'add features' (such as OOP, langauge enahncment 
>> > support
>> > for
>> > .....)  you add overhead...
>> >
>> > VFP is a superior product.
>> >
>> > If you need speed--- go back to FPD -- nothing is faster for data
>> > crunching.
>> > ugly UI but it's faster.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:41:21 GMT, john@aol.net (John C) wrote:
>> >
>> >>I have recently compared the performabce of VFP6 with good old FPW 
>> >>2.6,
>> >>by measuring the execution speed of all kinds of commands, variable
>> >>assignments, inserts, calculations etc,  in a for-next loop executed
> 50000
>> >>times for each item. It was done  on a P400 with 64 MB ram, Win98, no
>> >>other
>> >>program open.
>> >>
>> >>I was surprised to find that FPW 2.6 was allways faster. The 
>> >>differences
>> >>ranging from 10% to 130%. The median difference is between 25% and 30%.
>> >>
>> >>Hasn't Microsoft told us that VFP6 is faster than its predecessors and
>> >>isn't a 32 bit program supposed to run faster than a 16 bit program?
>> >>Or is somewhere a turbo switch that I haven't found?.
>> >>
>> >>The biggest difference I noticed  was with drawing boxes with the @..to
> or
>> >>@..box command (130%). Drawing boxes by using a box object in VFP6 is
>> >>about 20 times slower. That isn't noticeable if you have only a couple
> of
>> >>boxes to draw. But in a programm that uses that command to place
> pixelwise
>> >>thousands of boxes, lines or points in a chart to visualise data, the
>> >>difference is significant.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Remove x's to send.
>>
>>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FPW on a 3.0GHz P4 - will it work?
    ... "after you set up Microsoft Windows ... The issue reported there is the firewall not ... With a 98 box if I crashed VFP or FPW I almost always had ... I still run FPW stuff on my laptop (2.8 Ghz P4 w/XP Home ...
    (microsoft.public.fox.programmer.exchange)
  • Re: Benchmarks VFP6 - FPW 2.6
    ... As for boot times, I don't see where that's a problem. ... I have a test box running Windows 2003. ... >> versions, including FPW. ... >>> to VFP, and one of the things we found is that VFP is a real pig in the ...
    (microsoft.public.fox.programmer.exchange)
  • Re: Benchmarks VFP6 - FPW 2.6
    ... and if you run some simple tests FPD blows FPW out of hte water for speed. ... VFP is slower "by straight comparrison" but it wasn't written for a limited ... VFP is a superior product. ... >boxes to draw. ...
    (microsoft.public.fox.programmer.exchange)
  • Re: Problem editing FPW 2.6a screen - "Not a table/dbf"
    ... :>I'm suddenly getting this error when I try to edit my screen using FPW ... :Dan - Your email is bouncing back now with mailbox full. ... the FPW screen was opened/converted by a VFP version. ...
    (microsoft.public.fox.programmer.exchange)
  • Re: Memo fields in VFP
    ... We are in process of rewriting an old FPW 2.6 app in VFP. ... I am trying to compile the FPW 2.6 app under VFP 7.0 - managed to get ...
    (comp.databases.xbase.fox)