On Nov 12, 2007, at 3:36 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> I devised a quick test of loading speed and did some quick >> comparisons on my MacBook Pro 2.4GHz. (I am used to having one of >> the slowest machines around, my old 800Mhz Powerbook, so I still >> have to readjust my thinking). Here's my times: >> 14ms Pd-0.39.3-extended >> 6.5ms Pd-0.40-2 vanilla >> 16ms Pd-0.40.3-extended-20071111 >> So on the face of it, it looks like really large time >> differences. Percentage-wise it is a large difference, but >> perceptually, waiting 7ms vs. 16ms for something to load is not at >> all meaningful. No human could tell the difference in the >> experience unless you were generating sounds and visuals based on >> the opening and closing of the patch. >> This is, of course, on a fast machine. 300ms vs 800ms would be a >> big perceptual difference, basically it would be the feeling of >> opening quick versus a wait. >> I'd be interested to see how this fares on other machines and >> OSes. I attached the patches
One more to add: ~21ms Pd-0.39-2 vanilla The difference between 0.39.2 vanilla and extended is probably due to the improvements in Tcl/Tk. vanilla uses 8.4.5, extended 8.4.14 +cvs. For Mac people, Daniel Steffen recently has done a lot of work on making Tk run faster on Mac OS X in 8.5, so if anyone wants to experiment, I think there could be some real improvements there. Thanks all for the responses, I am also hoping to get some tests of the most recent Pd-0.40.3-extended nightly builds that use polygons instead of lines for the boxes. I am hoping to track down the mentioned slowness. .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list