Thanks, but you missed the fact that the Macs are all significantly FASTER than the Win machines, MHz-for-MHz, EXCEPT when I run the program under MacOS X. Anyway, I'm trying to solve the interesting problem of why Apple's SOTA OS runs seti@home much slower than Apple's previous OS.
Comments of the "[What do you expect]...it[']s an [A]pple!!!!!" sort are not only nonresponsive and irrelevant, but indicative of an unjust (-ified) Wintel-centric conceit, because in this case the implication is exactly OPPOSITE to the facts. Let's stick to constructive observations; all machines and all OS's of a given era have their strengths and their weaknesses. --howard ----- Original Message ----- From: t-pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 3:47 AM Subject: Re: S-L-O-W MacOS X performance! > > from my own experiences with my celry 300a@450 w/ 98se, amd k6-2 400 w/ 2k, > and my celery 600 laptop w/ ME > i get better results running all the time and the screen saver de-activated > as for the apple not getting as good time as the pc......its an apple!!!!! > > you could try letting it run all the time to see if that speeds it up > solong as you arent doin stuff takin up major cpu speed and mem then it > shouldnt hurt to let them run > the cmd client and seti-driver are the best unless you like watchin the GI > at work > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard L Ritter, Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 12:06 AM > Subject: S-L-O-W MacOS X performance! > > > > > > I've just joined the list, so I hope I'm not revisiting an old topic. I > > recently downloaded seti@home v3 for MacOS X and have run about 10 work > > units with it. To my astonishment, a work unit takes in the neighborhood > of > > 25 hours to complete on my 500 MHz G4 PowerBook with 512MB of RAM, > > comparable to what my 380 MHz Athlon-equipped Windows98 laptop and my 233 > > MHz G3 PB take. > > > > The current version of seti@home running on the same G4 PB under MacOS 9 > > runs a work unit in about 10-11 hrs, comparable to the approx 10 hrs that > my > > 700 MHz P3 Win98 desktop takes and a bit longer than the 9-10 hrs of the > 833 > > MHz Win98 at work. > > > > In all cases the screen-saver dialog is optimized, with early screen > > blanking etc, and the program is allowed to run only as a screen saver, > > never booted as an app. > > > > Anyone know why the vaunted MacOS X takes 250% as long to run a work unit > as > > OS 9? > > > > In addition, how do the times above for the G3 PB and the Win machines > > compare to others' experience with v3? > > > > Thanks, > > > > --howard > > > > == > > Unsubscribe instructions: http://www.talkspace.net/mlists/setiathome.html > > This list sponsored by talkspace.net: building space communities online. > > Mailing list services provided by klx.communications -- www.klx.com > > == > Unsubscribe instructions: http://www.talkspace.net/mlists/setiathome.html > This list sponsored by talkspace.net: building space communities online. > Mailing list services provided by klx.communications -- www.klx.com > == Unsubscribe instructions: http://www.talkspace.net/mlists/setiathome.html This list sponsored by talkspace.net: building space communities online. Mailing list services provided by klx.communications -- www.klx.com
