Re: What up with the mac
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 11:26 AM, Gregory Cranz wrote: > It's exactly this ideology, or lack thereof, that has caused business > columnists and pundits alike to compare the Open-Source and Freeware > markets (I'm not lumping the two together, but they are) with outright > Communism. This is much the chagrin of developers like me who now > have to ask during a job interview what the company's position is > regarding the Open Source movement i.e. "can I participate on open > projects while I work for you?" > > And yes, just asking the question has an impact on the good first > impression you're trying to make. I've even had recruiters give me > crap about mentioning it during the interview. Then I have to launch > into an explanation using someone like Ben Tilly of Perlmonks.com > (handle: Tilly) as an example of how you can get screwed by this. All > of this while trying to boil it down to fit into their attention span > and sound credible... Don't ask it on the first interview, or any interview. Even if you would unconditionally refuse to work for someone who would say no. Wait until they offer you the job, that way it won't weigh in on their decision and you still have just as much power to say no if they give you the unfavored response when you do ask. Erik -- Erik Price (zombies roam) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What up with the mac
Uh, that's crap. ;-) It was Ted Sturgeon, not Spider. See http://www.cpuidle.de/murphy.shtml, and note the change of 'crud' in the original to the form more usually cited. On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 08:18 PM, William H. Magill wrote: > As Spider Robinson once said -- "99% of everything is crap."
Re: What up with the mac
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 04:12 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote: > Time to jump in here with my own two cents. I don't think Gregory is > referring to folks like Unsanity or Stick, whose products represent a > serious amount of work at a rock-bottom price. That's shareware done > well. > > There is another side to shareware, though. I'm referring to authors > who take advantage of the fact that many Mac users won't touch > Terminal.app with a ten-foot pole. They spend fifteen minutes with > Apple's dev tools knocking together a half-assed GUI interface that > does nothing but sit on top of a command-line tool and/or fiddle with > the defaults database. Then, they release their "work" while implying > that their program offers some great new capabilities that OS X didn't > have, and they have the gall to demand $10, $20, or even $50 for it. Don't forget -- the prime issue behind shareware is "try it before you buy it." If you think it's crap, you don't have to pay for it. Unlike shrink wrapped software where you are stuck with a hole in your wallet. As Spider Robinson once said -- "99% of everything is crap." Personally, in my 30 years on the net, I've had far too much "freeware" that clearly was NOT worth the price I paid for it -- a LOT of time and agony installing, hacking, and un-installing at it trying to get it to work. The so called "open source" community does NOT generate software that "works" every time or is "better" than commercial alternatives. A lot of the code generated by the Open Source community is just as much crap as the Shareware or Commercial alternatives. It is NOT alternative in anything but cost. Today, it is better than it was, but not much. One still has to sweat bullets because some IDIOT did the port to your platform and OS. And as for the folks who wrap a GUI around something like say traceroute ... so what. Personally, "whatroute" is a LOT easier to use for most Personal Computer users than any command line application. The vast majority of the motoring public not only is incapable of cranking a car to get it started, but can't shift gears on one either. And as to the list of first rate Shareware, don't forget Avernum and its fellows! Some of us don't like "twitch," first-person-shooter games. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What up with the mac
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 11:26 AM, Gregory Cranz wrote: > On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 07:48 AM, Ask Solem Hoel wrote: >> >> [...] know I can pay for it in shareware >> but never /ever/ will I pay for shareware. Shareware sucks, and there >> is >> too much of it in the Mac world. That is why we need to re-create every >> useful shareware application as free software and kill those egomaniac >> shareware authors. >> > > Egomaniacs? This is SERIOUS flame-bait on a software developer's list. Time to jump in here with my own two cents. I don't think Gregory is referring to folks like Unsanity or Stick, whose products represent a serious amount of work at a rock-bottom price. That's shareware done well. There is another side to shareware, though. I'm referring to authors who take advantage of the fact that many Mac users won't touch Terminal.app with a ten-foot pole. They spend fifteen minutes with Apple's dev tools knocking together a half-assed GUI interface that does nothing but sit on top of a command-line tool and/or fiddle with the defaults database. Then, they release their "work" while implying that their program offers some great new capabilities that OS X didn't have, and they have the gall to demand $10, $20, or even $50 for it. > Tsk tsk, Shame on you. People deserve to EAT. People who make an honest effort to create something worth paying for deserve to eat. People who take advantage of others, demanding outrageous compensation for trivial work while deceiving people as to the amount of work they've truly done, deserve nothing but a jail sentence. They're frauds, and should be treated as such. I don't understand this knee-jerk defense of shareware. Just as in any given group of people, there are those in the shareware community who are driven by ego and/or greed to leech off of their fellow man. They're not in the majority, thank heavens, but they do exist. sherm--
Re: What up with the mac
On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 07:48 AM, Ask Solem Hoel wrote: > Work faster? Well my only problem with this MacOS X thing right > now is that the responsivness of the terminal is so slow. > Hitting ^F in vim in Terminal.app or xterm is slow, scrolling up and > down with j,k /jumps/ not floats. > > It feels like how the DOS commandline in Windows95 felt while > playing MP3 in the background on a 200Mhz Pentium PRO with 32MB ram. > I am running an original TiBook running 10.1.5 and I don't have this problem, even when running iTunes. Sure, if I'm using JBuilder's Application Server/Debugger or running Virex then there's some lag, but that's to be expected. What version of the OS are you running? What tasks are running behind it? Are you saying that this happens with nothing else running? > And this is a iMac 800Mhz, 768MB RAM, GeForce 4MX. > > [...] know I can pay for it in shareware > but never /ever/ will I pay for shareware. Shareware sucks, and there is > too much of it in the Mac world. That is why we need to re-create every > useful shareware application as free software and kill those egomaniac > shareware authors. > Egomaniacs? This is SERIOUS flame-bait on a software developer's list. Tsk tsk, Shame on you. People deserve to EAT. And not just Bill Gate$ or $teve Job$ either Those guys release broken or incomplete products & charge for tech support or "upgrades" (aka PATCHES) and are apparently fiercely defended for doing so on this list. It's exactly this ideology, or lack thereof, that has caused business columnists and pundits alike to compare the Open-Source and Freeware markets (I'm not lumping the two together, but they are) with outright Communism. This is much the chagrin of developers like me who now have to ask during a job interview what the company's position is regarding the Open Source movement i.e. "can I participate on open projects while I work for you?" And yes, just asking the question has an impact on the good first impression you're trying to make. I've even had recruiters give me crap about mentioning it during the interview. Then I have to launch into an explanation using someone like Ben Tilly of Perlmonks.com (handle: Tilly) as an example of how you can get screwed by this. All of this while trying to boil it down to fit into their attention span and sound credible...
Re: What up with the mac
On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 07:48 AM, Ask Solem Hoel wrote: > And I really do miss multiple workspaces. The dock isn't really great > when you have LOTS of windows. I miss the window-shading thing when you > double click in GNOME, MacOS 9 etc, I know I can pay for it in > shareware > but never /ever/ will I pay for shareware. Shareware sucks, and there > is > too much of it in the Mac world. That is why we need to re-create every > useful shareware application as free software and kill those egomaniac > shareware authors. The Daring Fireball wrote an interesting op piece about shareware developer Unsanity. Not that you'll change your mind (you sound pretty dogmatic about it), but he makes a good point -- $7 isn't a lot to ask. http://daringfireball.net/2002/10/labels_x.html On second thought, perhaps Apple will just do what they did with Watson, and appropriate the work of their 3rd-party developers into the next $130 "feature" release. So you can wait another year or so and pay for it then. From the perspective of free software, either way you lose -- you did realize you were purchasing a proprietary platform when you moved to OS X, right? Erik -- Erik Price (zombies roam) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] Terminal Speed (was Shareware [was: Re: What up with the mac])
I use Terminal *all* the time, and haven't seen any real speed issues, so the tip below, or some other issue would seem to be a likely culprit. True it's slightly slower than say xterms on a Linux box, but nothing like so much as to affect useability. OTOH, I have seen Terminal crash quite a few times. Not frequently enough to be a serious problem, but more than I would have expected (i.e. never). On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 03:44 PM, Jeff Hallgren wrote: > > If you aren't able to use Quartz Extreme due to video requirements you > MUST turn off the background transparency or Terminal is horribly slow > (especially scrolling). This has got to be a bug of some kind. > Hope this helps, > > On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 08:16 AM, Ask Solem Hoel wrote: > >> >> The terminal is still painfully slow, or maybe it doesn't >> support people that write faster than the refresh rate :) >> > >
Re: What up with the mac
Joel Rees [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] said: > What I keep waiting for Apple to do is put out a machine with one > relatively cheap processor dedicated to the user interface, another > relatively cheap processor for the file system, and a real hot-dog > processor to crunch numbers. But I don't think technology is quite > up to it yet, from the production and maintenance costs point of view. What? You're waiting for Apple to produce an Amiga? You've just described in a nutshell the architecture of an Amiga, circa 1986. Really great machine, with performance that outstripped both the Mac and the Atari ST (which, BTW, you could plug Apple ROMS into and make it run MacOS faster than the Mac at the time). Apple had the best marketing, though, so only they had enough market share to survive against the Microsoft in with IBM. I'm confused why Apple didn't pick up on that design, either. It would make the Mac blindingly fast.
Re: [OT] Shareware (was: Re: What up with the mac)
Ask Solem Hoel [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] said: > It's sad to come from a free software environment > and find that the things you rely on come as dozens of small > programs you don't know the reliability of for $20 each. Ok, besides having the source at your disposal to modify things as you see fit, how does this differ from open source software? A lot of open source stuff for OS X is functionally equivalent to shareware for me: it involves APIs I don't recognize and would rather not have to learn, so I'm never going to touch the source. Then the only difference between open source and shareware becomes whether the author asks for help coding or a few bucks. > Now if there were a console mode I could use that instead > of a virtual desktop for programming. > The terminal is still painfully slow, or maybe it doesn't > support people that write faster than the refresh rate :) I don't know what kind of system you're using, but I'm on a 333Mhz Lombard, and Terminal seems pretty snappy for me. I've never been able to outtype it. -packy -- Packy Anderson Dardan Web Associates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What up with the mac
> > That said, I still prefer 'em over any other platform, but certainly > not for their speed. In spite of them being noticeably slow, they > enable me to work faster. > Work faster? Well my only problem with this MacOS X thing right now is that the responsivness of the terminal is so slow. Hitting ^F in vim in Terminal.app or xterm is slow, scrolling up and down with j,k /jumps/ not floats. It feels like how the DOS commandline in Windows95 felt while playing MP3 in the background on a 200Mhz Pentium PRO with 32MB ram. And this is a iMac 800Mhz, 768MB RAM, GeForce 4MX. And I really do miss multiple workspaces. The dock isn't really great when you have LOTS of windows. I miss the window-shading thing when you double click in GNOME, MacOS 9 etc, I know I can pay for it in shareware but never /ever/ will I pay for shareware. Shareware sucks, and there is too much of it in the Mac world. That is why we need to re-create every useful shareware application as free software and kill those egomaniac shareware authors. Can't wait for MacOS X 10.3 or even better 10.4. -- Ask Solem Hoel[+4722808579 | +4797962181] ABC Startsiden AS [ http://www.startsiden.no]
Re: [OT] Shareware (was: Re: What up with the mac)
If you aren't able to use Quartz Extreme due to video requirements you MUST turn off the background transparency or Terminal is horribly slow (especially scrolling). This has got to be a bug of some kind. Hope this helps, On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 08:16 AM, Ask Solem Hoel wrote: > > The terminal is still painfully slow, or maybe it doesn't > support people that write faster than the refresh rate :) >
Re: What up with the mac
On 10/11/02 7:48 AM, "Ask Solem Hoel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know I can pay for it in shareware > but never /ever/ will I pay for shareware. Shareware sucks, and there is > too much of it in the Mac world. That is why we need to re-create every > useful shareware application as free software and kill those egomaniac > shareware authors. Wow, I've never seen a more negative comment on shareware. In fact, I've rarely seen anyone criticize shareware... it was the shareware authors who made it possible for me to switch to OSX 10.0, as they quickly provided support for things like the application menu, windowshade, tinkertool's options... Most of these pieces of software were $15 or less, far less than if a well-known developer had introduced them. Egomaniacs? I'd say "useful opportunists" at worst, but I for one have payed for each of the shareware titles I use HAPPILY. How can there ever be too much inexpensive software?... philz
Re: What up with the mac
Replying to the groups b/c some may find this useful On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 07:48 AM, Ask Solem Hoel wrote: > And I really do miss multiple workspaces. > Code Tek Virtual Desktop, best 20USD spent ever http://www.codetek.com/php/virtual.php -- Lou Moran http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html
[OT] Shareware (was: Re: What up with the mac)
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 14:47, zampino wrote: > > Wow, I've never seen a more negative comment on shareware. In fact, I've > rarely seen anyone criticize shareware... it was the shareware authors who > made it possible for me to switch to OSX 10.0, as they quickly provided > support for things like the application menu, windowshade, tinkertool's > options... Most of these pieces of software were $15 or less, far less than > if a well-known developer had introduced them. > > Egomaniacs? I'd say "useful opportunists" at worst, but I for one have > payed for each of the shareware titles I use HAPPILY. How can there ever be > too much inexpensive software?... > > philz Sorry. For most of the shareware programs I've seen for the mac, I cannot really see any difference between shareware and software demos. I'll refer to them as annoyware in the rest of my flames :) It's sad to come from a free software environment and find that the things you rely on come as dozens of small programs you don't know the reliability of for $20 each. Now if there were a console mode I could use that instead of a virtual desktop for programming. The terminal is still painfully slow, or maybe it doesn't support people that write faster than the refresh rate :) -- Ask Solem Hoel[+4722808579 | +4797962181] ABC Startsiden AS [ http://www.startsiden.no]
Re: [OT] Shareware (was: Re: What up with the mac)
On 11 Oct 2002, Ask Solem Hoel wrote: > Now if there were a console mode I could use that instead > of a virtual desktop for programming. You mean logging in from the system prompt as >console and then, when you get the text prompt, logging in as whoever? At that point you can fire up XDarwin & have all the virtual desktops you want. But then, at that point, you might as well use Linux/BSD/Unix... > The terminal is still painfully slow, or maybe it doesn't > support people that write faster than the refresh rate :) Constructive criticism is great an all, but come on, it's not *that* bad. If the system is bothering you that much why aren't you using something else? If the system is bothering you that much why are you complaining about it on a Perl list instead of telling Apple how you feel? What are we going to do about it -- commiserate? No thanks. -- Chris Devers[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT Java pseudo-benchmark (was Re: What up with the mac)
Okay, here's the Java program I was talking about, since someone might
want it and I'm going to be off-list for a while:
-begin code
/**
* Let's try the Factorial in BigInteger
*
* @author Joel Rees, Altech Corporation, Esaka, Japan
* Copyright September 2002
* May be copied, modified, and/or used freely.
* No warranty. Use at your own risk.
*
* @version 0.1
*/
import java.lang.Class;
import java.math.BigInteger;
public class BigFactorial
{
public static void main( String[] args )
{ if ( ( args.length < 1 ) || ( args[ 0 ].charAt( 0 ) == '-' ) )
{ System.out.println( "Usage: "
/* Okay, this is ridiculous. */
+ BigFactorial.class.getName()
+ " {, }" );
}
else
{ for ( int i = 0; i < args.length; ++i )
{ BigInteger input = new BigInteger( args[ i ] );
System.out.println(
"("
+ input.toString()
+ ")! == " + factorial( input ).toString() );
}
}
}
/* Let's not try to blow the stack with the old
* forced example of recursion, at any rate.
*/
public static BigInteger factorial( BigInteger n )
{ if ( n.compareTo( BigInteger.ZERO ) < 0 )
{ return new BigInteger( "0" );
}
BigInteger result = new BigInteger( "1" );
while ( n.compareTo( BigInteger.ONE ) > 0 )
{ result = result.multiply( n );
n = n.subtract( BigInteger.ONE );
}
return result;
}
}
--end code-
Should be easy to re-write in Perl.
--
Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: What up with the mac
Puneet Kishor iwaku > The bottomline is -- whatever the fancy architecture behind these > machines, whatever the Macworld demos by Mr. Jobs might demo, Macs are > generally slower [...] Okay, one more time around -- (1) The compiler optimizations are tuned to the iNTEL architecture. There's no way getting around this, unless you have money to re-educate and feed the guys who own GCC while they get up to full speed on PPC. Had the same problems with the 68K. A lot of tricks to optimize x86 code work backwards on a decently architected CPU, incidentally. In a loose estimate, that accounts for about 10% to 300% of the speed difference, depending on the application. (2) The Mac OSses have always done more for us than the MS OSses. (That explains the "subjective" difference in usability, OK?) The time for that has to come from somewhere, and that is in my mind the singular most significant benefit of dual CPUs. One CPU can be minding your mouse while the other crunches. Among the topics I'm waving my hands at here is the fact that making the interrupt architecture more responsive and more flexible for general processes will slow down specific individual tasks on a given CPU (algorithmic flaws aside). As a rough guess, this kind of stuff will account for another 30% to 150% of the speed difference. (Again, depending on what you're doing.) (3) The legacy stuff from Classic, because it did so much more than DOS ever could, provides a significant amount of drag on the system. Just having it available will slow the system down 3% to 10% from what it could be getting, and having the Classic system actually running will slow the system down 10% to 50% or more, again, as a rough estimate. (4) We have stray reports from the various attempts to port Mac OS to the iNTEL architecture that it runs faster "over there". It should. In addition to the compiler writer training effects I mentioned above, re-implementations should generally be more efficient than original implementations. You can push some of the efficiency back to the original implementation, but you have to test any changes you bring back pretty thoroughly. Ports are expected to have stupid errors, so the testing requirements are significantly lower on the new implementation. Incidentally, a lot of the speed gain going from 68K to PPC were re-implementation effects. A 68060 running 66 MHz and and a PPC running 66 MHz were not that much different in raw speed over a good mix of reasonably optimized code. (Most of the really fancy instructions in the 68020+ were not useful, however.) Is that enough, or should I continue? If you really want speed, you don't go to another general purpose OS, you use dedicated systems, and you choose a CPU you know how to generate optimal code for. (What I keep waiting for Apple to do is put out a machine with one relatively cheap processor dedicated to the user interface, another relatively cheap processor for the file system, and a real hot-dog processor to crunch numbers. But I don't think technology is quite up to it yet, from the production and maintenance costs point of view.) > That said, I still prefer 'em over any other platform, but certainly > not for their speed. In spite of them being noticeably slow, they > enable me to work faster. This is the bottom line for me. I don't care how fast a machine crunches numbers if it doesn't help me get my job done. I strongly suspect I'd be more productive on on old PowerPC 7100 running 8.6 than on this 900+ MHz MSW2k box with a gigabyte of RAM. Sure, I can use a Q&D Java program with less than 50 lines to compute all the factorials from 0 to 5000 in under a second on this box, and my 300 MHz Mac OS X iBook with 192K RAM takes around 5 seconds on the same program. On a 7100, who knows? several minutes? But how often would I do that in a day? On MSW2k, I have Active State's Perl doing some repetitive tasks for me. On Mac OS, I can control the mouse and the system well enough that I just do lots of these things by hand. Saves me the time to write the script. I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure. I'll shut up. -- Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: What up with the mac
I didn't write to scripts below, but they are fun to play with.
Obviously some adjustment would be needed to compare across systems.
#
#!/usr/bin/perl Benchmark_demo1
#Measure CPU usage of a some portion of a program
use Benchmark;
# generate list of all text files in /etc
@text_files = grep { -f and -T } glob('/etc/*');
timethis(100, 'sort_by_size(@text_files)');
# sort the files names according to file sizes
sub sort_by_size {
my @files = @_;
@files = sort { -s $a <=> -s $b } @files;
return @files;
}
#
#
#!/usr/bin/perl Benchmark_demo2
#Can confirm that one technique is faster than another
use Benchmark;
# generate list of all text files in /etc
@text_files = grep { -f and -T } glob('/etc/*');
timethis(100, 'faster_sort_by_size(@text_files)');
# sort the files names according to file sizes,
# stat'ing each file just once
sub faster_sort_by_size {
my @files = @_;
@files = map { $_->[1] }
sort { $a->[0] <=> $b->[0] }
map { [ -s $_, $_ ] } @files;
return @files;
}
#
Re: What up with the mac
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bill Stephenson wrote: > Has anyone ran a Benchmark test on their OS X Mac? I'm a bit curious to > see how Perl on OS X stacks up against other systems. Particularly interesting would be a cross comparison among, say, OSX, pure Darwin, a PPC version of Linux, and maybe PPC BSD. For comparison, these can be tried against x86 versions of the same systems. The ultimate idea being to get an idea of how OSX compares to other systems that use this hardware, and how this hardware compares to it's big brother alternative. -- Chris Devers[EMAIL PROTECTED] I had pancake makeup for brunch!
Re: What up with the mac
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 02:31 PM, Brigham Mecham wrote: > Hello > > Perhaps someone can fill me in on this one. I am comparing the run > time of a perl program I wrote. Using my Mac G4 which has a 1.5 ghz > processor and a 1.3 ghz PC computer (processor chip type I don't know > but could find out) I am seeing that the Mac takes 14 seconds to > complete what the PC does in 6! What's up with that? > > there were a lot of replies to this post, most of them (rightfully) asking for more information regarding the computer, the processes running on them, etc. etc. Also, many questioned the validity of a G4 1.5 Ghz machine. To my eye that just seems like a typo, and is irrelevant in that, there _is_ a legit question here. I too have noticed slowness comparing my Win box and Mac. The reality is that Macs are slower than Intel boxes, and the reality is that it is very difficult to compare different processors as well as clock speeds. In the end what matters is whether or not a specific task generally "appears" to be slow or fast, assuming most normal configs. My Win box is running Apache2, MySQL, SQL Server 7, and Cold Fusion daemons (the user-installed daemons) besides other OS junk). It is a PIII, 800 MHz machine with 512 Mb ram. My iBook is a G3 600 Mhz with 640 Mb ram, and is running Apache 1.3.x besides other OS junk). Yes, the iBook is 200 Mhz less, but it is running a lot less than the Win box, and has a lot more RAM. It is decidedly slower in most all tasks. Java apps crawl on my iBook. Html rendering is noticeably slow, etc. I once did some benchmarking with the benchmarking scripts drieux has put up on his website, and yes, perl scripts were slower on the Mac. Was this the case when the Mhz were comparable? Yes! When my Win box was a PIII 400, even then it "seemed" faster. The bottomline is -- whatever the fancy architecture behind these machines, whatever the Macworld demos by Mr. Jobs might demo, Macs are generally slower (this is an empirical, not a scientific statement -- although sites like barefeats and xlr8yourmac have compared various configs of Moto and Intel boxes and found the same to be true, EXCEPT in the case of some altivec optimized software). The problem may be because software are not written optimized for Macs, the problem maybe because of something inherent in Macs themselves. Whatever, but macs are slow. That said, I still prefer 'em over any other platform, but certainly not for their speed. In spite of them being noticeably slow, they enable me to work faster. :-) Regards, pk/
Re: What up with the mac
Has anyone ran a Benchmark test on their OS X Mac? I'm a bit curious to see how Perl on OS X stacks up against other systems. I can try to run it on my iBook 366 ;) -- Bill Stephenson > From: Gregory Cranz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:54:42 -0400 > To: Brigham Mecham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What up with the mac > > Comparing an arbitrary script is not necessarily a 'fair' or 'clean' > test from one system to another. I would suggest working with the > Benchmark module available from CPAN. This is designed to function in > this capacity and is more appropriate for performance testing. As has > been noted previously in responses to this query, there are a lot of > things that a script might do, without divulging your script, this would > probably be your best course of action. > > > > On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 03:31 PM, Brigham Mecham wrote: > >> >> >>> -- >>> From: Brigham Mecham[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:31:50 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: What up with the mac >>> Auto forwarded by a Rule >> Hello >> >> Perhaps someone can fill me in on this one. I am comparing the run >> time of a perl program I wrote. Using my Mac G4 which has a 1.5 ghz >> processor and a 1.3 ghz PC computer (processor chip type I don't know >> but could find out) I am seeing that the Mac takes 14 seconds to >> complete what the PC does in 6! What's up with that? > >
Re: What up with the mac
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 03:31 PM, Brigham Mecham wrote: > Hello > > Perhaps someone can fill me in on this one. I am comparing the run > time of a perl program I wrote. Using my Mac G4 which has a 1.5 ghz > processor and a 1.3 ghz PC computer (processor chip type I don't know > but could find out) I am seeing that the Mac takes 14 seconds to > complete what the PC does in 6! What's up with that? > > There are so many things wrong with this question that I would normally not respond to it but I think buried under the mess you wrote is a legit question. Since 1.25 Ghz is as fast as Macs are currently going I wonder if you are on 25 Mhz machine. What does the script do? Memory? HD? What else is running when you are doing this? Many questions to answer > > -- Lou Moran http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/resume/lmoran2002.html >
Re: What up with the mac
Comparing an arbitrary script is not necessarily a 'fair' or 'clean' test from one system to another. I would suggest working with the Benchmark module available from CPAN. This is designed to function in this capacity and is more appropriate for performance testing. As has been noted previously in responses to this query, there are a lot of things that a script might do, without divulging your script, this would probably be your best course of action. On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 03:31 PM, Brigham Mecham wrote: > > >> -- >> From:Brigham Mecham[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent:Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:31:50 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: What up with the mac >> Auto forwarded by a Rule > Hello > > Perhaps someone can fill me in on this one. I am comparing the run > time of a perl program I wrote. Using my Mac G4 which has a 1.5 ghz > processor and a 1.3 ghz PC computer (processor chip type I don't know > but could find out) I am seeing that the Mac takes 14 seconds to > complete what the PC does in 6! What's up with that?
Re: What up with the mac
--- Brigham Mecham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > Perhaps someone can fill me in on this one. I am > comparing the run time > of a perl program I wrote. Using my Mac G4 which > has a 1.5 ghz > processor and a 1.3 ghz PC computer (processor chip > type I don't know > but could find out) I am seeing that the Mac takes > 14 seconds to > complete what the PC does in 6! What's up with > that? > My question is where did you get a 1.5 GHz mac considering 1.25 Dual is top of the line? James __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: What up with the mac
What is the script? If you truly think you have an optimization problem on the Mac, then send us the script -- assuming it is of reasonable size. Are you doing something in Perl that is really a Windows-specific task...are you running Perl within Mac OS X or through Fink packages...do you have the same versions of Perl...are you running Perl on OS X or OS 9...do the computers have the same amount of RAM, similar HDs, running one locally vs off a networked HD??? Also, 1.5 GHz Apple?!? Do you mean dual-1.25 GHz Apple? it is difficult to even comment with so little information to go by. On 2002.10.9, at 12:31 午後, Brigham Mecham wrote: > Hello > > Perhaps someone can fill me in on this one. I am comparing the run > time of a perl program I wrote. Using my Mac G4 which has a 1.5 ghz > processor and a 1.3 ghz PC computer (processor chip type I don't know > but could find out) I am seeing that the Mac takes 14 seconds to > complete what the PC does in 6! What's up with that? >
Re: What up with the mac
Quoting Brigham Mecham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello > > Perhaps someone can fill me in on this one. I am comparing the run time > of a perl program I wrote. Using my Mac G4 which has a 1.5 ghz > processor and a 1.3 ghz PC computer (processor chip type I don't know > but could find out) I am seeing that the Mac takes 14 seconds to > complete what the PC does in 6! What's up with that? > That could be hard to guess without the detailt of your program. Remember There could be other things than the CPU slowing it down. o The operating system (differences in implementation of systemcalls etc) o The amount of memory, the bus speed of the memory. o The file system (if the program finds files i.e) Without knowing anything about the program, it's impossible to tell. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
