I'm considering writing a new Windows GUI app, where one of the requirements is that the app must be very responsive, quick to load, and have a light memory footprint.
I've used WTL for previous apps I've built with this type of requirement, but as I use .NET all the time in my day job WTL is getting more and more painful to go back to. I'm not interested in using .NET for this app, as I still find the performance of larger .NET UIs lacking, but I am interested in using a better C++ framework for the UI - like Qt.
What I want to be sure of before starting is that I'm not going to regret this on the performance front.
So: Is Qt fast?
I'll try and qualify the question by examples of what I'd like to come close to matching: My current WTL app is Programmer's Notepad. The current version I'm working on weighs in at about 4mb of code for a 32-bit, release compiled version with a single language translation. On a modern fast PC it takes 1-3 seconds to load, which is important as people fire it up often to avoid IDEs etc. The memory footprint is usually 12-20 mb on 64-bit Win7 once you've been editing for a while. You can run the app non-stop, leave it minimized, whatever and it always jumps to attention instantly when you switch to it.
For the sake of argument let's say I want to port my WTL app to Qt for potential future cross-platform support and/or the much easier UI framework. I want to come close to if not match this level of performance with Qt.
Just chiming in with my experience in case you still haven't solved it or anyone else is looking for more experience. I've recently developed a pretty heavy (regular QGraphicsView, OpenGL QGraphicsView, QtSQL database access, ...) application with Qt 4.7 AND I'm also a stickler for performance. That includes startup performance of course, I like my applications to show up nearly instantly, so I spend quite a bit of time on that.
Speed: Fantastic, I have no complaints. My heavy app that needs to instantiate at least 100 widgets on startup alone (granted, a lot of those are QLabels) starts up in a split second (I don't notice any delay between doubleclicking and the window appearing).
Memory: This is the bad part, Qt with many subsystems in my experience does use a noticeable amount of memory. Then again this does count for the many subsystems usage, QtXML, QtOpenGL, QtSQL, QtSVG, you name it, I use it. My current application at startup manages to use about 50 MB but it starts up lightning fast and responds swiftly as well
Ease of programming / API: Qt is an absolute joy to use, from its containers to its widget classes to its modules. All the while making memory management easy (QObject) system and mantaining super performance. I've always written pure win32 before this and I wil never go back. For example, with the QtConcurrent classes I was able to change a method invocation from myMethod(arguments) to QtConcurrent::run(this, MyClass::myMethod, arguments)and with one single line a non-GUI heavy processing method was threaded. With a QFuture and QFutureWatcher I could monitor when the thread had ended (either with signals or just method checking). What ease of use! Very elegant design all around.
So in retrospect: very good performance (including app startup), quite high memory usage if many submodules are used, fantastic API and possibilities, cross-platform
Going native API is the most performant choice by definition - anything other than that is a wrapper around native API.
What exactly do you expect to be the performance bottleneck? Any strict numbers? Honestly, vague ,,very responsive, quick to load, and have a light memory footprint'' sounds like a requirement gathering bug to me. Performance is often overspecified.
To the point:
Qt's signal-slot mechanism is really fast. It's statically typed and translates with MOC to quite simple slot method calls.
Qt offers nice multithreading support, so that you can have responsive GUI in one thread and whatever else in other threads without much hassle. That might work.
Programmer's Notepad is an text editor which uses Scintilla as the text editing core component and WTL as UI library.
JuffEd is a text editor which uses QScintilla as the text editing core component and Qt as UI library.
I have installed the latest versions of Programmer's Notepad and JuffEd and studied the memory footprint of both editors by using Process Explorer.
Empty file:
- juffed.exe Private Bytes: 4,532K Virtual Size: 56,288K
- pn.exe Private Bytes: 6,316K Virtual Size: 57,268K
"wtl\Include\atlctrls.h" (264K, ~10.000 lines, scrolled from beginning to end a few times):
- juffed.exe Private Bytes: 7,964K Virtual Size: 62,640K
- pn.exe Private Bytes: 7,480K Virtual Size: 63,180K
after a select all (Ctrl-A), cut (Ctrl-X) and paste (Ctrl-V)
- juffed.exe Private Bytes: 8,488K Virtual Size: 66,700K
- pn.exe Private Bytes: 8,580K Virtual Size: 63,712K
Note that while scrolling (Pg Down / Pg Up pressed) JuffEd seemed to eat more CPU than Programmer's Notepad.
Combined exe and dll sizes:
- juffed.exe QtXml4.dll QtGui4.dll QtCore4.dll qscintilla2.dll mingwm10.dll libjuff.dll 14Mb
- pn.exe SciLexer.dll msvcr80.dll msvcp80.dll msvcm80.dll libexpat.dll ctagsnavigator.dll pnse.dll 4.77 Mb
The above comparison is not fair because JuffEd was not compiled with Visual Studio 2005, which should generate smaller binaries.
We have been using Qt for multiple years now, developing a good size UI application with various elements in the UI, including a 3D window. Whenever we hit a major slowdown in app performance it is usually our fault (we do a lot of database access) and not the UIs.
They have done a lot of work over the last years to speed up drawing (this is where most of the time is spent). In general unless you really do implement a kind of editor usually there is not a lot of time spent executing code inside the UI. It mostly waits on input from the user.
Qt is a very nice framework, but there is a performance penalty. This has mostly to do with painting. Qt uses its own renderer for painting everything - text, rectangles, you name it... To the underlying window system every Qt application looks like a single window with a big bitmap inside. No nested windows, no nothing. This is good for flicker-free rendering and maximum control over the painting, but this comes at the price of completely forgoing any possibility for hardware acceleration. Hardware acceleration is still noticeable nowadays, e.g. when filling large rectangles in a single color, as is often the case in windowing systems.
That said, Qt is "fast enough" in almost all cases.
I mostly notice slowness when running on a Macbook whose CPU fan is very sensitive and will come to life after only a few seconds of moderate CPU activity. Using the mouse to scroll around in a Qt application loads the CPU a lot more than scrolling around in a native application. The same goes for resizing windows.
As I said, Qt is fast enough but if increased battery draining matters to you, or if you care about very smooth window resizing, then you don't have much choice besides going native.
Since you seem to consider a 3 second application startup "fast", it doesn't sound like you would care at all about Qt's performance, though. I would consider 3 second startup dog-slow, but opinions on that vary naturally.
The overall program performance will of course be up to you, but I don't think that you have to worry about the UI. Thanks to the graphics scene and OpenGL support you can do fast 2D/3D graphics too.
Last but not least, an example from my own experience:
Using Qt on Linux/Embedded XP machine with 128 MB of Ram. Windows uses MFC, Linux uses Qt. Custom user GUI with lots of painting, and a regular admin GUI with controls/widgets. From a user's point of view, Qt is as fast as MFC. Note: it was a full screen program that could not be minimized.
Edited after you have added more info:
you can expect a larger executable size (especially with Qt MinGW) and more memory usage. In your case, try playing with one of the IDEs (e.g. Qt Creator) or text editors written in Qt and see what you think.
I personally would choose Qt as I've never seen any performance hit for using it. That said, you can get a little closer to native with wxWidgets and still have a cross-platform app. You'll never be quite as fast as straight Win32 or MFC (and family) but you gain a multi-platform audience. So the question for you is, is this worth a small trade-off?
My experience is mostly with MFC, and more recently with C#. MFC is pretty close to the bare metal so unless you define a ton of data structure, it should be pretty quick.
For graphics painting, I always find it useful to render to a memory bitmap, and then blt that to the screen. It looks faster, and it may even be faster, because it's not worrying about clipping.
There usually is some kind of performance problem that creeps in, in spite of my trying to avoid it. I use a very simple way to find these problems: just wait until it's being subjectively slow, pause it, and examine the call stack. I do this a number of times - 10 is usually more than enough. It's a poor man's profiler but works well, no fuss, no bother. The problem is always something no one could have guessed, and usually easy to fix. This is why it works.
If there are dialogs of any complexity, I use my own technique, Dynamic Dialogs, because I'm spoiled. They are not for the faint-of-heart, but are very flexible and perform nicely.
I once made an app to determine the "primeness" of a number (whether it was prime or composite).
I first attempted a Qt GUI, and it took 5 hours to return the answer for 1,299,827 on a computer with 8GB of RAM and an AMD 1090T # 4GHz running no other foreground processes under Linux.
My second attempt used a QProcess of a console application that used the exact same code. On a laptop with 1.3GB of RAM and a 1.4GHz CPU, the response came with no perceivable delay.
I will not deny, though, that it is far easier than GTK+ or Win32, and it handles things quite nicely, but separate intensive processing ENTIRELY from the GUI if you use it.
Related
Is there a Windows standard way to do things such as "start fan", "decrease speed" or the like, from C/C++?
I have a suspicion it might be ACPI, but I am a frail mortal and cannot read that kind of documentation.
Edit: e.g. Windows 7 lets you select in your power plan options such as "passive cooling" (only when things get hot?) vs. "active cooling" (keep the CPU proactively cool?). It seems the OS does have a way to control the fan generically.
I am at the moment working on a project that, among other things, controls the computer fans. Basically, the fans are controlled by the superIO chip of your computer. We access the chip directly using port-mapped IO, and from there we can get to the logical fan device. Using port-mapped IO requires the code to run in kernel mode, but windows does not supply any drivers for generic port IO (with good reason, since it is a very powerful tool), so we wrote our own driver, and used that.
If you want to go down this route, you basically need knowledge in two areas: driver development and how to access and interpret superIO chip information. When we started the project, we didn't know anything in either of these areas, so it has been learning by browsing, reading and finally doing. To gain the knowledge, we have been especially helped by looking at these links:
The WDK, which is the Windows Driver Kit. You need this to compile any driver you write for windows, With it comes a whole lot of source code for example drivers, including a driver for general port-mapped IO, called portio.
WinIO has source code for a driver in C, a dll in C that programmatically installs and loads that driver, and some C# code for a GUI, that loads the dll and reads/writes to the ports. The driver is very similar to the one in portio.
lm-sensors is a linux project, that, among other things, detects your superIO chip. /prog/detect/sensors-detect is the perl program, that does the detecting, and we have spent some time going through the code to see how to interface with a superIO chip.
When we were going through the lm-sensors code, it was very nice to have tools like RapidDriver and RW-everything, since they allowed us to simulate a run of sensors-detect. The latter is the more powerful, and is very helpful in visualising the IO space, while the former provides easier access to some operations which map better to the ones in sensors-detect (read/write byte to port)
Finally, you need to find the datasheet of your superIO chip. From the examples, that I have seen, the environment controllers of each chip provide similar functionality (r/w fan speed, read temperature, read chip voltage), but vary in what registers you have to write to in order to get to this functionality. This place has had all the datasheets, we have needed so far.
If you want something real quick to just lower fans to a level where you know things won't overheat, there's the speedfan program to do so. Figuring out how to configure it in the early versions to automatically lower fans to 50% on computer startup was so painful that my first approach was to simply byte-patch it to start the only superio managed fan I had at lower speed. The newer versions are still bit tough but it's doable - there's a graphical slider system that looks like audio equalizer except that the x axis is temp and y is fan speed. You drag them down one by one. After you figure out how to get manual control for the fan you want, this is next step.
There's a project to monitor hardware (like fans) with C#:
http://code.google.com/p/open-hardware-monitor/
I haven't extensively looked at it, but the source code and use of WinRing0.sys atleast gives the impression that if you know what fan controller you have and have the datasheet, it should be modifiable to also set values instead of just getting them. I don't know what tool is suited (beside kernel debugger) to look at what Speedfan does, if you preferred to snoop around and imitate speedfan instead of looking at the datasheets and trying things out.
Yes, It would be ACPI, and to my knowledge windows doesn't give much/any control over that from user space. So you'd have to start mucking with drivers, which is nigh impossible on windows.
That said, google reveals there are a few open source windows libraries for this for specific hardware... so depending on your hardware you might be able to find something.
ACPI may or may not allow you to adjust the fan settings. Some BIOS implementations may not allow that control though -- they may force control depending on the BIOS/CMOS settings. One might be hard-pressed for a good use case where the BIOS control (even customized) is insufficient. I have come across situations where the BIOS control indeed was insufficient, but not for all possible motherboard platforms.
WIndows Management Instrumentation library (WMI) does provide a Win32_Fan Class and even a SetSpeed method. Alas, the docs say this is not implemented, so I guess it's not very helpful. But you may be able to control things by setting the power state.
I'm attempting to run two applications simultaneously on windows 7, however, I'm finding that when I do this, whichever has focus runs at a normal speed but the other is clearly running at a far slower speed. (For reference, one is a unity application and the other is a C++ direct X application). Has anyone ever encountered something like this? Is there a way to allow both applications to run at full speed? The system ought to have the resources to run both, neither are very complex. When I monitor the system resources, etc, everything looks good.
Windows automatically offers less system resources to unfocused programs no matter their complexity or requirements. I don't believe you can disable that.
That makes sense. I looked into a bit deeper and found that the Desktop Window Manager was the one causing the headache. I stopped the service, set the processor affinity for each application, and everything was golden after that.
is there way to prevent application exit by clicking close button? the following code only hide minimize and maximize buttons but not close button...
Atom window_type = XInternAtom(display, "_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE", False);
long value = XInternAtom(display, "_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_TOOLBAR", False);
XChangeProperty(display, window, window_type, XA_ATOM, 32, PropModeReplace, (unsigned char *) &value,1 );
i tried to search via google about overriding _NET_CLOSE_WINDOW but can't really find one... or a way to remove _NET_WM_ACTION_CLOSE from the xprop...
Read ICCCM & EWMH. You might need months (or years) to understand all the details (and the relation to X11 and X protocols and architectures).
You could in theory do what you want in raw Xlib. But details are so complex that you really should use some toolkit, like Qt or GTK (life is short), or maybe libSDL or SFML. See also this list.
Mastering X11 at the protocol and Xlib levels take a lot of time (the related documentation has many thousands of pages). Are you sure to willing to spend that?
So coding at the raw X11 level is like coding in assembler. Nobody does that for real programs today, and for similar reasons (too low level of abstraction; too many details to care about....).
Notice that the current trend is to replace X with Wayland. You could need several years to develop your thing from scratch in X11, and by the time you'll succeed, X would become obsolete. BTW recent versions of Qt & GTK know about Wayland (so the same code can work on X11 and on Wayland).
So use some GUI toolkit. They are monster software of millions of lines, and there is a reason for that complexity (also, graphics cards are very complex hardware today; see also this & this). They give you the ability to disable closing a window (because they know all the ICCCM & EWMH details).
Since you tagged your question with C++, I strongly recommend using Qt (or maybe SFML). The documentation of Qt is excellent.
BTW, your unclear question looks strange (and lacks motivation and context). It seems that you are wrongly supposing that your application is the only one on the screen, and that is against the philosophy of every windowing system (which are multi-tasking and multi-window, so multi-application, at heart). You should think your application as working with other ones (e.g. for copy & paste, which has no sense without thinking of several applications and several windows involved). And an advanced user could always "terminate" your application (e.g. with kill(1) or xkill). You probably want instead to be notified of window closes (e.g. to show some dialog when that happens). You should not even design an unclosable application (that is against all coding and interface guidelines).
Coming from C++ & MFC background, is there any better (maintainability/customization) platform in developing application GUI ?
We are developing industrial applications (machine vision), where :
-Performance-critical (mostly image processing in CPU atm, but GPU is up next)
-Low level hardware interfacing (inhouse PCI device, frame grabber, motion card)
-Real-time data visualization (images / statistical graph)
-Future roadmap includes networkability for distributed processing and remote access.
Cross-platform will not be important for us since the system runs in controlled-environment (customer only cares whether the system runs and they got their output).
There are also concerns on migration cost (3rd party dependencies, training cost for developers and service personnel)
Edit
Clarification on the "image processing" mentioned above:
I'm referring to "picture" (2D information in matrix format) rather than graphic (commonly 3D vectorized). Currently we uses 3rd party imaging library (for spatial domain processing like segmentation, OCR/OCV, morphology, pattern match) and incorporate our result logic.
If you need performance-critical graphics processing, then C++/DirectX or C++/OpenGL are your best bets, hands down. C++/DirectX is arguably the more maintainable of the two.
That said... depending on the actual processing you're doing, you might consider moving portions of your UI to a more maintainable platform. The .NET framework / WPF can do some pretty amazing things, and with good implementation of patterns like MVVM and can be amazingly maintainable. Ditto the networking side; WCF abstracts a lot of common protocols away from the code, making for cleaner, more maintainable networking code. You can even write your translation layer between your unmanaged processing and your managed layer in C++/CLI.
That said, it's all very subjective. I can't tell enough from your bullet points to make a good judgement on whether or not you can offload some or even all of your processing to .NET/C#. It's worth considering, but my gut tells me that it's probably not your best bet.
As a fan of Qt I would be remiss not to mention it.
Although cross-platform is not one of your criteria, it is a nice bonus.
Qt also has good video hardware support through OpenGL (I'm not sure that it will help with capture hardware though).
It is open-source so you can get your hands as dirty as you like.
It is highly customizable.
It is actively developed and has a large community.
MFC programmers should not have much trouble coming up to speed.
You should also read through some of these questions and answers:
Good C++ GUI library for Windows
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/610/gui-programming-apis
What I had did before when developing a C++ scientific application is that, it will develop it completely under console based application. The console based application will able accept various type of command from user keyboard, and perform action accordingly. For example :
image_processor > load input.png
image_processor > save out.png
The good thing on this is, I can 100% in concentrating my algorithm design, without worry much on how to fit into the GUI framework. Either they are MFC or QT.
At the end of day, instead of taking input from keyboard input stream, I will just simply hook my console based application's STDIN, to the GUI application communication channel. My GUI application will then string based command, to talk and receive feedback from the console application.
Guess what I use to develop the GUI? Java Swing :)
I guess I am taking Unix people approach. See what Joel says :
Suppose you take a Unix programmer and a Windows programmer and give them each the task of creating the same end-user application. The Unix programmer will create a command-line or text-driven core and occasionally, as an afterthought, build a GUI which drives that core. This way the main operations of the application will be available to other programmers who can invoke the program on the command line and read the results as text. The Windows programmer will tend to start with a GUI, and occasionally, as an afterthought, add a scripting language which can automate the operation of the GUI interface.
I realize by taking Windows approach, you will end up with a more user friendly application. However, if your main concern is to get the sophisticated algorithm written well and GUI is the secondary, I would suggest that you go for Unix approach.
I've been playing a big with the DC obtained with CreateDC(L"DISPLAY",NULL,NULL,NULL) and I've been wondering why does windows let you draw on the whole screen that easily, cause I think you could do some pretty evil stuff with that like putting a TIMER at 1ms and drawing a black rectangle on the whole screen every time the timer ticks.
The fact that you could do some pretty evil stuff doesn't mean windows shouldn't let you do it. Just think of all the other evil things you could do:
Run in an infinite loop and eat up all the cpu time.
Write random bits to a file until you fill up the whole hard disk.
Delete random files all over the place.
Allocate memory like crazy until the computer slows to a crawl.
Just because you CAN do those things doesn't mean windows should prevent you from writing to the hard drive or allocating memory or deleting files.
The purpose of Windows is to provide an environment in which programs can run. The more flexible they make that environment, the more interesting (and, unfortunately, devious) programs it makes possible for developers to create.
If they started putting in arbitrary restrictions on what you can do because you might abuse it... well, then it wouldn't be windows, it would be an iPhone :)
why does windows let you write to the hard drive so easily?
you could do some pretty evil stuff like overwrite every file on the hard drive.
The security of the desktop is given to the user running the desktop, you can't draw on it if you are not a privileged user.
Note that one doesn't usually CreateDC() on the desktop, but usually GetDC() for a particular window during the WM_PAINT message handler.
A program can also delete the file system, or destroy the registry (if suitably permissioned), the desktop is a user-permissioned resource like any other. If they run an application with their security credentials, they can do what they wish.
However in practice, one would create a window and paint within it.
Because it should be that easy.
It is that easy because to put rules and controls in place would mean that you would be cutting down the things you can do with the language and the windows framework. If this happened then there would be screams from the other side of the fence shouting at how you can't do this and that.
It is these abilities which make the language powerful, but with that power comes the danger. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. You can format you hard drive... doesn't mean that you should do this when you launch the clock application.
If you are not happy with this level of 'responsibility' then pick a different language or framework to write in.
Everything is a Window and Every Window has a HANDLE. So, if you have got DesktopHandle, then you can draw anything on it. What is the problem with it.
Offcourse, the application that is doing evil stuff(like you said) has been allowed to run on the machine by yourself, therefore, it can do more eviler stuff than this such as formatting your hard-drive etc.
If the method you're using (getting the screen DC) was disabled, it wouldn't stop people from doing the following.
You can create a window, you can paint in the window, you can set the size of the window to cover the whole screen, therefore you can paint on the whole screen.
And you can grab a bitmap of the whole screen, so you can paint the underlying screen content in the window and then make adjustments to it.
So it would be very easy to simulate the same effect using a combination of things that, on their own, are perfectly valid and extremely useful.
Because there may be a time when you need to do these things. I am sure at the moment you can't think of any but writing on the screen may be useful.
On OS X there are many applications who write directly on the screen. Useful information like CPU time or even a calender. That's cool!
But not everything that can be done must be done.
One of the primary reasons Windows is so afflicted with malware is the lack of security around such things as you describe. Others have cited examples such as filling the hard drive, erasing random files, or eating CPU time... all of these things are security concerns, and all of them are prevented by the other two major operating systems (Linux and OSX). This doesn't mean that you can't do similar things on those operating systems, but it means that a normal user can't do it. They'd have to be granted the right permissions, and usually also forced to use a very restrictive API to limit what they can do. So the answer to your question is "because it wasn't designed with security in mind". This allows programmers significantly more flexibility, and these powers can be used for good, but IMHO it more often breeds laziness (people use the brute force way instead of spending the time figuring out the "right" way to do something) and opens the door for security problems (malware).