Never mind, I just downloaded VirtualT 1.6 pre-compiled from Sourceforge
and tested it in my Windows 11 VM.
It took 26 seconds to run that same loop (still not 32 seconds). But
"NEXT" is a tiny bit faster than "NEXT X" which took 30 seconds. So
VirtualT on Windows is either 2 seconds or 6 seconds faster depending on
what your 32 second comparison was.
So it seems like the emulation timer in Linux needs to be investigated
(and possibly a minor tweak in Windows is also needed).
Ken
On 2/10/26 5:24 AM, Kenneth Pettit wrote:
I'm wondering ... are you using VirtualT on Windows, Linux or Mac?
When I wrote this code I was using predominately Windows and so all my
testing for speed would have been done there. However I now use
basically only Mac or Linux and use Windows only if I am already
having a bad day anyway. I don't even have VirtualT compiled in my VM
(I guess I could download a pre-compiled binary and run it). So I did
my speed testing using Linux.
I'm wondering if Windows has a similar speed. The simple program I
used was this (and used a stopwatch to time it):
10 FORX=1TO10000:NEXT
Ken
On 2/9/26 12:18 PM, B9 wrote:
Thank you for checking!
Definitely 32 seconds on my Tandy 200. Is this only a problem for
Virtual T's 200 emulation? I think this would have been noticed
before if it affected the Model 100, or perhaps it's a regression?
--b9
