speed of FB 1.10 on a Win10 64 bit 2 core sys

New to FreeBASIC? Post your questions here.
Post Reply
integer
Posts: 408
Joined: Feb 01, 2007 16:54
Location: usa

speed of FB 1.10 on a Win10 64 bit 2 core sys

Post by integer »

Does the FB run slower on a 64bit system?

Some background:
This is what I use ATM:
1) An XP system runs at 2 GHZ with 1 GB of Ram.
When I click on Firefox, the firefox icon and screen pops up in about three seconds.

2) I have a Win7 system with 4 GB of RAM running at 3.1 GHz
When I click on the Firefox, the respone is about two seconds.
When I click on slimjet, about three seconds.
When I click on Chrome -- it tells me that I need to upgrade to Win10, since
win7 is no longer supported.

the situation:
I thought this was a super good deal on a used PC. The previous owner no longer
had a use for the pc -- thus I got it as is, no $ cost.
a 64bit Win10 system, 2 core with 4 GB of RAM, running at 3.3 GHz
It is NOT capable of running Windows 11 -- per the upgrade response.

When I click on the EDGE icon it requires about 35 seconds (YES, half a minute!)
for the system to respond with the internet search. There is a chrome
icon and it requires about 30 to 40 seconds to respond and be ready
to search the web.

I found the FB forum & downloaded the FB files ( ver. FB 1.10)
Also found 7zip & downloaded. It appears that the download and unzip worked.

Question 1: How do I get the fb icon to the desktop?
In the XP & Win7, it was a simple click to generate an short cut icon for the desktop screen?

On this Win10 64bit system, clicking on any ( 'any' ) icon requires 5 to 15 seconds to respond.
Is this normal for the 64 bit window system?
When I double-click on the fbc.exe file, I have time to get a cup of coffee before it responds.
I can type about a half a dozen keystrokes, before any popup to the screen.
There must be something wrong with FB 64 bit or perhaps it is the Win10 64 bit.

I believe the FB 64 bit is not the problem, but cannot be positive about that.
Question 2: Is this the new standard for Win10 systems?
That is run slower.
Will the compiled fb programs run slower on a 64 bit OS?

I thought I'd ask the forum while I wait for the program to compile and eventually run.
marcov
Posts: 3462
Joined: Jun 16, 2005 9:45
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: speed of FB 1.10 on a Win10 64 bit 2 core sys

Post by marcov »

You system is simply underspeced. 4GB for Windows 10 is not workable. That might not even provide a gigabyte free for applications, the rest is eaten up by the system
srvaldez
Posts: 3379
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

Re: speed of FB 1.10 on a Win10 64 bit 2 core sys

Post by srvaldez »

integer, I would suggest that you factory reset the 4GB PC
integer
Posts: 408
Joined: Feb 01, 2007 16:54
Location: usa

Re: speed of FB 1.10 on a Win10 64 bit 2 core sys

Post by integer »

@marcov & @srvaldez
THANK YOU

I had 16 GB memory added.
I reset the PC

Now, it requires about three to five seconds for browzers to activate: firefox, slimjet; chrome; edge
Your suggestion was/is appreciated.
UEZ
Posts: 988
Joined: May 05, 2017 19:59
Location: Germany

Re: speed of FB 1.10 on a Win10 64 bit 2 core sys

Post by UEZ »

@Integer: did you turn off Windows Defender?
deltarho[1859]
Posts: 4310
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: speed of FB 1.10 on a Win10 64 bit 2 core sys

Post by deltarho[1859] »

I have Windows Defender disabled and use ESET Internet Security. My FreeBASIC development folder and WinFBE suite is on an external SSD(256GiB) and excluded from ESET scanning. The development folder is backed up daily on another external SSD(1TiB) along with system backups. I'm on Win10 and cannot get Win11 either.

I have just compiled a 120KiB binary in 1.5 seconds on gas and 3.5 seconds on 32-bit gcc -O2. My machine is getting on in years and turbos at 3.9GiHz.

I have the internet caches for both Firefox and Microsoft Edge on a 512MiB Ram Disk. That would have been problematic with 4GiB but not with your now 16GiB. No 'wear and tear' on a SSD, my C: drive, which does not like many small files.

Unfortunately, Web Browsers like plenty of cores.
Post Reply