COCKOS
CONFEDERATED FORUMS
Cockos : REAPER : NINJAM : Forums
Forum Home : Register : FAQ : Members List : Search :
Old 06-15-2010, 07:44 AM   #1
schwa
Administrator
 
schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 10,250
Default LICE, GDI+ performance comparison

I was curious about the relative performance of LICE (Cockos open-source graphics library) vs GDI+ (native Windows graphics library), so I wrote a little test app to compare.

Binary: http://user.cockos.com/~schwa/files/testapp.exe
Source: http://user.cockos.com/~schwa/files/testapp.cpp
Build files: http://user.cockos.com/~schwa/files/testapp.zip
LICE: http://www.cockos.com/wdl/

The reported time is milliseconds per drawing primitive, so a smaller number means faster drawing.

i7: LICE is 5-10x faster
P4: LICE is 1.5-4x faster


Last edited by schwa; 06-15-2010 at 08:48 PM.
schwa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 09:20 AM   #2
nofish
Human being with feelings
 
nofish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 9,049
Default

lines mode:

LICE: ~ 0.2 ms
GDI+: ~ 0.4 ms

AMD 64 X2 4600+,WinXP32 SP3, Matrox G550 dual-head (real old, direct3D acceleration not available, don't know if that matters)

Last edited by nofish; 06-15-2010 at 09:42 AM. Reason: corrected figures, see schwa's post below
nofish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 09:25 AM   #3
schwa
Administrator
 
schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 10,250
Default

I just updated the exe (the LICE version was previously updating the whole screen on every draw) ...
schwa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 09:31 AM   #4
Analogy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 871
Default

LICE is 5-10x faster on my Core 2 Duo.

EDIT: The difference goes down to about 2x when I resize the window to fill my desktop.

Last edited by Analogy; 06-15-2010 at 09:53 AM.
Analogy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 09:46 AM   #5
liteon
Human being with feelings
 
liteon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
Default

a 32bit build ?

different optimization levels and architecture specific flags (if msvc has such) could affect the performance results, but also the version of the included gdi with your os and a ton of other things..


---
liteon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 09:54 AM   #6
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,739
Default

Code:
C2D / X4500MHD IGP: / Vista32:
-----------------------------
        GDI+         LICE
Lines:   0.6          0.2
Curves:  1.0          0.6
Circles: 1.0          0.3

Atom N270 / GMA950 IGP / XPH:
-----------------------------
        GDI+         LICE
Lines:   1.0          0.4
Curves:  1.3          2.0
Circles: 1.6          0.6

Last edited by Ollie; 06-15-2010 at 12:08 PM. Reason: OS
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 10:11 AM   #7
schwa
Administrator
 
schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 10,250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
different optimization levels and architecture specific flags (if msvc has such) could affect the performance results, but also the version of the included gdi with your os and a ton of other things.
Yes, absolutely. Also some graphics cards may have hardware acceleration hooks for GDI+, which can be good or bad. This is not meant to be a comprehensive test suite, just a data point.
schwa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 10:51 AM   #8
liteon
Human being with feelings
 
liteon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
Default

i can't run it on my desktop machine (the backtrace shows a movq ss somewhere in there)

but on a vista / centrino duo laptop, lice draws 3x - 4x faster.



---
liteon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 12:03 PM   #9
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
i can't run it on my desktop machine (the backtrace shows a movq ss somewhere in there)

but on a vista / centrino duo laptop, lice draws 3x - 4x faster.



---
What CPU is in your desktop machine?
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 12:19 PM   #10
liteon
Human being with feelings
 
liteon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
What CPU is in your desktop machine?
athlon xp 1800+ (thoroughbred)
socket A(462), family: 6, model: 8, stepping: 1
sse, mmx(+ext), 3dnow(+ext)



--
liteon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 12:26 PM   #11
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,739
Default

Another Athlon XP that doesn't work here (crash at offset 0x000019cc after launching the program).
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 12:28 PM   #12
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,435
Default

Here's a build built with ICC that should a) work on older CPUs, and b) might be faster (in LICE mode) on newer CPUs too:

http://1014.org/shiz/shup/testapp.exe

-Justin
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 01:27 PM   #13
liteon
Human being with feelings
 
liteon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
Default

works now,
lice is 2x - 3x faster on this machine.



--

Last edited by liteon; 06-15-2010 at 01:41 PM. Reason: ..
liteon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 02:41 PM   #14
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,739
Default

Results (new build):

Code:
C2D / X4500MHD IGP: / Vista32:
-----------------------------
        GDI+         LICE
Lines:   0.5          0.2
Curves:  0.9          0.3
Circles: 0.9          0.5

Atom N270 / GMA950 IGP / XPH:
-----------------------------
        GDI+         LICE
Lines:   0.8          0.4
Curves:  1.6          0.7
Circles: 1.4          1.7

Athlon XP3200+ / GF 7600GS AGP / XPP
------------------------------------
        GDI+         LICE
Lines:   0.8          0.1
Curves:  1.3          0.2
Circles: 1.3          1.6
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 03:13 PM   #15
PitchSlap
Human being with feelings
 
PitchSlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,207
Default

Here's my results with the newest build Justin posted.

Core2Duo 2Ghz, 2GB RAM, WinXP SP3
I have hardware video acceleration completely turned off, as it conflicts with my USB soundcard.

Lines
Lice: 0.17ms
GDI: 4ms

Curves
Lice 0.57
GDI: 6.8ms


Circles
Lice: 0.4ms
GDI 8.3ms
__________________
FRs: v5 Media Explorer Requests, Global Quantization, Session View
Win10 64-bit, Reaper 5(x64), Core i7-5700HQ, 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 960M, SSD
PitchSlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 03:51 PM   #16
Tranquil
Human being with feelings
 
Tranquil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 89
Default

Code:
AMD Phenom II X4: / win7:
---------------------------
         GDI+         LICE
Lines:   1.046        0.173
Curves:  1.458        0.650
Circles: 1.530        0.315
*this is with the second build
Tranquil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:01 PM   #17
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,831
Default

with the second build, and a largish window, lice (just used the second build) is 4-10x faster than GDI+.

i5, w7-64, 4Gb, nvidia 9600gt, most recent vid drivers
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:12 PM   #18
Rome
Human being with feelings
 
Rome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Stavromula Beta
Posts: 154
Default

Just for fun: Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 2.2GHz, 4GB RAM, nVidia G 103M, Ubuntu 10.4 Lucid Lynx (Wine 1.1.42):

Code:
         LICE     GDI+
Lines:   4.6 ms    88.2 ms
Curves:  4.7 ms   138.0 ms
Circles: 4.7 ms   175.6 ms
Virtual Box with Windows XP on the same machine:

Code:
         LICE     GDI+
Lines:   2.8 ms   1.8 ms
Curves:  4.2 ms   2.0 ms
Circles: 3.3 ms   2.1 ms
Windows 7/x64 on the same machine:

Code:
         LICE     GDI+
Lines:   0.18 ms   2.45 ms
Curves:  0.39 ms   2.86 ms
Circles: 0.24 ms   2.74 ms
This is with the second build Justin posted above.

Last edited by Rome; 06-15-2010 at 05:18 PM. Reason: Added virtualbox and win7/x64
Rome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:15 PM   #19
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,244
Default

And Microsoft are allowed to write their own code... why?
Lokasenna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:49 PM   #20
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 7,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna View Post
And Microsoft are allowed to write their own code... why?
Not everything needs super high performance. Also GDI+ apparently has a nicer API for less experienced programmers. (And there's sure plenty of those in the Windows ecosystem.) So I understand why Microsoft has done it the way they done it. And there's anyway for example DirectX for high performance graphics available, for people who can understand how to use it.

Personally I haven't seen a reason to use GDI+ for anything, it seems to indeed suck in many ways.
__________________
For info on SWS Reaper extension plugin (including Xenakios' previous extension/actions) :
http://www.sws-extension.org/
https://github.com/Jeff0S/sws
--
Xenakios blog (about HourGlass, Paul(X)Stretch and λ) :
http://xenakios.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Xenakios; 06-15-2010 at 04:58 PM.
Xenakios is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 05:10 PM   #21
schwa
Administrator
 
schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 10,250
Default

I think at the time GDI+ was created, Microsoft was hoping that a lot of GDI (very simple Microsoft drawing API, can't do antialiasing or curves) would be implemented by video card manufacturers to give "free" hardware acceleration, and that GDI+ would sort of piggyback on that. So their design spec was an easy-to-use API for programmers, and all sorts of implementation access points under the hood.

But like Xenakios said, GDI+ sort of got left behind by DirectX, which lets you do far more complex accelerated graphics, so there wasn't much incentive for graphics card manufacturers to provide acceleration for GDI+, and speed was probably never a priority for the software implementation.

There are probably a number of apps out there that have their own internal LICE-like lightweight code for drawing primitives.
schwa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 05:47 PM   #22
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schwa View Post
I think at the time GDI+ was created, Microsoft was hoping that a lot of GDI (very simple Microsoft drawing API, can't do antialiasing or curves) would be implemented by video card manufacturers to give "free" hardware acceleration, and that GDI+ would sort of piggyback on that. So their design spec was an easy-to-use API for programmers, and all sorts of implementation access points under the hood.

But like Xenakios said, GDI+ sort of got left behind by DirectX, which lets you do far more complex accelerated graphics, so there wasn't much incentive for graphics card manufacturers to provide acceleration for GDI+, and speed was probably never a priority for the software implementation.

There are probably a number of apps out there that have their own internal LICE-like lightweight code for drawing primitives.
when i first saw the speed difference, i thought it might have been because GDI+ was doing antialiasing or something (and it is) - but LICE is doing that as well.

pretty phenomenal speed difference. but GDI+ has to support weird crap like non-standard display DPIs and printing support and junk like that. still a pretty huge performance difference though.

what's the secret?
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 06:58 PM   #23
JHughes
Human being with feelings
 
JHughes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Too close to Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,412
Default

Intel Q9550 (Core2 Quad 2.83 GHz)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 MB
Windows 7 x64

Lines
GDI+ = 1.05 ms
LICE = 0.19 ms
5.5X

Curves
GDI+ = 1.54 ms
LICE = 0.50 ms
3.08X

Circles
GDI+ = 1.46 ms
LICE = 0.29 ms
5.03X
__________________
You can only Reverse, Switch, Invert or Flip POLARITY, not "PHASE".
JHughes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 07:04 PM   #24
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 7,922
Default

Lines
Lice : 0.18ms
GDI+ : 1.24ms

Curves
Lice : 0.37ms
GDI+ : 1.6ms

Circles
Lice : 0.25ms
GDI+ : 1.7ms

(On the ICC built exe)

Windows 7/64 bit
Intel Q8200
ATI HD 3650

While the Lice results are impressive (kudos to the Cockos guys on that ), in perspective GDI+ isn't doing *that* bad based on these results. For example in the circle test it's still over 550 frames per second that could be drawn on my system, if I am interpreting the test correctly. Human interaction hardly requires anything more than about 30 frames per second. (Though of course GDI+ probably starts to severely suck with more complex graphics where Lice might then totally excel.)
__________________
For info on SWS Reaper extension plugin (including Xenakios' previous extension/actions) :
http://www.sws-extension.org/
https://github.com/Jeff0S/sws
--
Xenakios blog (about HourGlass, Paul(X)Stretch and λ) :
http://xenakios.wordpress.com/
Xenakios is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 03:14 AM   #25
Tale
Human being with feelings
 
Tale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,975
Default

These are the results on my Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86 GHz / Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT:

Code:
Schwa's testapp.exe:
-----------------------------
                  GDI+   LICE
lines:           0.468  0.064  7.3X
curves:          0.772  0.311  2.5X
circles:         0.509  0.056  9.1X
filled circles:  0.353  0.231  1.5X

Justin's testapp.exe:
-----------------------------
                  GDI+   LICE
lines:           0.477  0.058  8.2X
curves:          0.770  0.237  3.2X
circles:         0.816  0.101  8.1X
__________________
Martinic Kee Bass - Scanner Vibrato - Elka Panther - Tale's JSFX Pack
Tale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 04:34 AM   #26
liteon
Human being with feelings
 
liteon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
Default

we use gdi on windows for the alpha blending, and xrender on linux... one benefit though, is that linking against these libraries has pretty much no size overhead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenakios View Post
Human interaction hardly requires anything more than about 30 frames per second.
this on a 3d gaming/graphics forum is the equivalent of starting a small "32bit / 64bit precision" or "daw A vs daw B" discussion on an audio related forum :-) ! the debate is very old ...

this is an article that explain:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
in short, 30fps look good on a movie because there is motion blur between the frames. this originally is the effect of the film rolling i believe.

there is also a small program for download in there called "FPS Compare (old) (106KB)" that will try prove some of the statements.

i've noticed these differences some time after the game quake came out around 1996. i was fortunate enough to have a fairly decent computer at that time... and there was a parameter in the game to tweak the maximum fps.




---
liteon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 05:33 AM   #27
Analogy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
in short, 30fps look good on a movie because there is motion blur between the frames. this originally is the effect of the film rolling i believe.
The actual cause of motion blur goes back to when the film is exposed - every frame, the shutter is held open long enough for enough light to fall on the film to expose it properly. Anything moving during the exposure leaves a blurry trail - motion blur. When the movie is projected the film is actually held perfectly still while the projector is shining light through the frame. A shutter cuts off the light while the film is advanced to the next frame. You do not see the film rolling.

When frames are shown in sequence, the motion blur acts as a sort of "temporal anti-aliasing," smoothing out apparent motion in the same way that anti-aliasing a font or other computer generated image causes it to look smooth instead of blocky.
Analogy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 09:07 AM   #28
liteon
Human being with feelings
 
liteon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
Default

OT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogy View Post
The actual cause of motion blur goes back to when the film is exposed - every frame, the shutter is held open long enough for enough light to fall on the film to expose it properly. Anything moving during the exposure leaves a blurry trail - motion blur. When the movie is projected the film is actually held perfectly still while the projector is shining light through the frame. A shutter cuts off the light while the film is advanced to the next frame. You do not see the film rolling.

When frames are shown in sequence, the motion blur acts as a sort of "temporal anti-aliasing," smoothing out apparent motion in the same way that anti-aliasing a font or other computer generated image causes it to look smooth instead of blocky.
this is cool info,
never thought much of how a camera works, and it makes a lot more sense now...



---
liteon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 01:32 PM   #29
Tale
Human being with feelings
 
Tale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tale View Post
These are the results on my Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86 GHz / Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT:

Code:
Schwa's testapp.exe:
-----------------------------
                  GDI+   LICE
lines:           0.468  0.064  7.3X
curves:          0.772  0.311  2.5X
circles:         0.509  0.056  9.1X
filled circles:  0.353  0.231  1.5X

Justin's testapp.exe:
-----------------------------
                  GDI+   LICE
lines:           0.477  0.058  8.2X
curves:          0.770  0.237  3.2X
circles:         0.816  0.101  8.1X
I have a slightly faster computer at home (an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40 GHz) with a slightly lesser graphics card (Nvidia GeForce 8400 GS), so I thought I'd run the tests on that machine as well. These are the results:

Code:
Schwa's testapp.exe:
-----------------------------
                  GDI+   LICE
lines:           0.493  0.051  9.7X
curves:          0.795  0.272  2.9X
circles:         0.532  0.045  11.8X
filled circles:  0.366  0.200  1.8X

Justin's testapp.exe:
-----------------------------
                  GDI+   LICE
lines:           0.498  0.047  10.6X
curves:          0.794  0.219  3.6X
circles:         0.820  0.089  9.2X
When I compare these results with my earlier test at work, it clearly shows that LICE performs better on an E6600 than on an E6300, which is expected. However, GDI+ doesn't perform better on the E6600 machine, it performs worse. I think this is because of the lesser graphics card. So tt would seem that LICE benefits more from a fast CPU, while GDI+ benefits more from a fast graphics card.
__________________
Martinic Kee Bass - Scanner Vibrato - Elka Panther - Tale's JSFX Pack
Tale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 02:20 PM   #30
todd_r
Human being with feelings
 
todd_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 559
Default

2nd Testapp
Ubuntu 10.04
Linux 2.6.32-22-generic (i686)
Wine 1.2 rc3
Intel Core2Duo P8600
GeForce 9300M GS - Driver Version:195.36.24
Fullscreen
________________________________________________

Lice

Lines 19.222
Curves 14.135
Circles 19.499

GDI+

Lines 0.098
Curves 0.132
Circles 0.064

________________________________________________


The GDI+ results stay pretty steady, but the Lice results vary, they seem to slowly creep up as the complexity increases

I've always thought that redraws were a little slow using Reaper under wine, and this seems to confirm this, I dont get the same problem with other windows apps that I assume are using GDI+. Anyone any idea what's going on here
todd_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 03:25 PM   #31
todd_r
Human being with feelings
 
todd_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 559
Default

Just tried wine with native GDI+ (ie microsoft) just fyi, lice results stayed the same

GDI+

Lines 155.783
Curved 245.466
Circles 313.296

Rome are you using native or builtin gdi+ in wine?

Last edited by todd_r; 06-17-2010 at 03:30 PM.
todd_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2010, 08:38 AM   #32
synth
Human being with feelings
 
synth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Synthopia
Posts: 1,729
Default

- Raw GPU power is what you need for better scores in this 'benchmark'. The 2D rendering tests barely use any CPU resources.

- Justin's ICC build performs slower on modern AMD CPUs

- Windows XP has much better 2D performance than Windows 7. The difference in performance between LICE and GDI+ is much greater under WinXP.

- LICE is a whole lot faster than GDI+:

6x faster (lines)
2x faster (curves)
6.7x faster (circles)
1.6x faster (filled circles)

on an AMD Phenom II 955 w/ onboard ATI HD3300 graphics, Windows 7 32-bit
__________________
Synth's consolidated FR thread: Loaded with some of the *hottest* features in DAW-land:

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=22279

Last edited by synth; 06-29-2010 at 08:51 AM.
synth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 05:23 AM   #33
todd_r
Human being with feelings
 
todd_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 559
Default

Anyone any idea why my results with lice under wine aren't too good?
todd_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 05:46 AM   #34
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,739
Default

If you compare the results here, it looks very much like the results are really going through the roof when a decent GPU is involved and a bit less stellar e.g. on my IGPs. So in my theory, the lack of a driver utilizing HW acceleration functions or generic drivers and/or a slow GPU could do that to your results, plus everything seem to be generally slower on WINE which is probably no surprise. I may be wrong.
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 02:57 PM   #35
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 10,383
Default

i7 920, 1366 RAM, 9800GT GPU, Win7 x64

I let each test run for at least 30 seconds before recording the value.

Lice(GDI):

Lines 63ms (788)
Curves 243ms(980)
Circles 61ms (750)
Filled Circles 246 ms(after a while) (~850ms)
__________________
Dialogue/FX Editor & Re-Recording Mixer
(Video)Using Latch Preview
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2018, 02:56 AM   #36
juliansader
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,752
Default

Is the original .cpp file perhaps still available for download somewhere?

I am trying to learn more about LICE, so it would be helpful to see a simple example of LICE and GDI doing the same actions.

Last edited by juliansader; 09-03-2018 at 05:12 AM.
juliansader is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.