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