Bruce, Hmm ... I must say you did a much better job this time of showing my experience to be inapplicable (I have quoted your best points below for ref). I never considered that maybe my particular apps are not too hard on the memory but are limited by something else. What about HyperCard? Probably not too memory limited either. In my experience, HyperCard was always very limited by disk access. Man, I wish they had developed that further. I was never more creative than in HyperCard. Imagine if HyperCard had become the web browser and they had added URL resolution, true full colour support and a raft of interoperability tools, and opened the standards, to boot. I think the world of web development would be a far better place to work today because HTML/Javascript are such a mess compared to HyperTalk and in some ways -- many ways if you force HTML/Javascript to stand on their own -- still less functional. I don't mention CGI because HyperCard also has a language-independent interface to outside functions so that's a wash -- and all the more intuitive tools like Flash that might be able to serve similarly to HyperCard, are so specialised that they need often need to be supplemented by outside scripting, anyway. And also, their database capabilities are gutted because you are expected to achieve that through yet another scripting language. It's all insanely divergent, and in exactly the places where it should be convergent, and this a-new-language-for-every-new-capability thing is great for innovation and maybe even a necessary stage, but far too unwieldy to last, and totally without rational justification. Eventually most of this functionality is going to have be folded into a single scripting lingo, if only for the sake of the continued productivity growth of future generations of developers. That scripting lingo could so easily have been HyperTalk from the beginning, because it already has its fingers in every pie. But this is all *so* off topic -- I just have little else to fill this space with besides 'I must agree' because you trounced my arguments. 8P
So amend my comments to mean ... the improvement from memory interleaving is hardly noticeable in classic Mac OS with the majority of apps that are not particularly memory-intensive, definitely not including Photoshop or probably anything else that renders (besides HTML). I guess I can't speak to any other issue, and I definitely can't speak to issues of stability because as I have indicated changing interleaving (indeed, reorganising my RAM in any way) has never made any difference to my stability, which is usually good. I guess my system has never experienced that particular instability that can be influenced by the way you access memory. Paul. On Tuesday, Jan 28, 2003, at 13:10 Canada/Eastern, Bruce Johnson wrote: > Web browsing is not, generally speaking, memory-constrained. You need > to > do things like manipulate images in Photoshop or a 3D modelling > application (though they're largely processor constrained, they also > depend on moving about large chunks of memory at once). > > Caching in web browsers is designed to evade the bandwith constraints > imposed by your network connection, so turning that off likely just > swamped the diference memory makes. Boosting the memory cache would > have > been a better test. > > It's entirely likely that the applications you're using are not memory > constrained, so a 5% improvent in something the app spends 15% of it's > time doing is going to be quite unnoticeable. > > This is, in a large part, the genesis of the old adage "Liars benchmark > and benchmarks lie"...you need to be careful to measure your systems so > that you are, in fact, measuring what you wish to measure ;-) > > -- > Bruce Johnson > University of Arizona > College of Pharmacy > Information Technology Group > > Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs > > > > > -- > Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> > > Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> > > Unsupported OS X list info > <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> > --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; > Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To unsubscribe, email: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For digest mode, email: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Archive > <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/> > > Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com > > -- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
