2009/7/9 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> Gary Chambers wrote:
>>
>> That'd be OB then.
>> With the StandardToolSet, Pharo0.1Core-10371, on a 2.8 Quad I get 303
>> ms...
>
> That sounds about right. And yes, it's obviously an OB issue - this whole
> discussion started out by Igor wondering why people don't like using OB. I
> think a major part of the answer is just that.
>
I don't notice very big sluggines on my quad-core.
Unless i open 5-6 windows..  :)

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>> Regards, Gary
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
>> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
>> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:40 PM
>> Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: The future
>> ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT licenseclean))
>>
>>
>>> David Corking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
>>>> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
>>>> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
>>>> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
>>>> perform better.)
>>>>
>>>> To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any
>>>> code profiling done on this issue?
>>>
>>> I haven't done any real profiling. But here is a starting point:
>>>
>>> [ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
>>>
>>> On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020
>>> msecs. That's 10x slower.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>  - Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.