Hi John,

I've rerun this on a 3.8 and the very newest 3.9a on my PowerBook  
1.25GHz, on a mac 3.7beta1 vm.

On the 3.9a image, LookEnh was even faster than without, in 3.8 it  
was slower.  There were some performance improvements in 3.9 which  
seam to have quite some effect. From those numbers, I guess that  
LookEnh does not have the impact on performance I thought. At least  
we would need to do some better benchmarks to get reliable numbers...

Cheers,
Adrian

BTW, here my numbers:

3.8 without LookEnh
9143
9226

3.8 with LookEnh:
9900
10151
9672

3.9 without LookEnh
7688
7594

3.9 with LookEnh
6848
6762
7414



On Jul 28, 2005, at 4:35 AM, John Pierce wrote:


> Hi Adrian,
>
> On 7/26/05, Adrian Lienhard <adi at netstyle.ch> wrote: Another thing  
> that stroke me is peed... In 3.8 with the enhancement
> everything seems to be a bit slower than before (the UI in Squeak
> never was fast but I have the feeling it become slower with each new
> release...).
>
> To get some numbers (they should probably be treated with care..) I
> evaluated "[ 10 timesRepeat: [ Browser openBrowser ] ] timeToRun" and
> got:
>
> 3.7 without LookEnhancement:  9674
> 3.7 with LookEnhancement: 12060
> 3.8 with LookEnhancement: 15665
> 3.8 without LookEnhancement: 11138
>
> I cannot seem to substantiate these findings. Here's what I get  
> after successive timed trials:
>
> 3.8 without LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds
> 3.8 with LookEnhancements: 4 - 5 seconds
>
> I saw no measurable difference in the timing, and, if any, the  
> performance was marginally better for some goofy reason. Honest! I  
> am running a P4 1.7GHz with 1 GB ram. Anyways, I don't find any hot  
> spots to improve performance on at the moment.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> -- 
> It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a  
> simple idea. -- Carver Mead
>
>
>