On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM). I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU utilization even under lite GUI use.
David,
This is suprising, on my: - old Athlon 2400 - SuSE9.3 - VM Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021], - latest 3.9 gama 7058 image - 1280x960
I was just recently thinking "this is best speed I have seen since 3.7". When doing simple windows operations (moving around, resizing etc) top reports below 30%, always for a very brief period when doing the work (typically below 20%).
Yoshiki's test (higlight, alt-p) | a b | a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). [a += b] timeToRun. 268
I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :) ) , time for creating 60 graphs it takes 17 seconds, usage around 80%, never above 85% (ok my top sampling 5s), goes down to almost 0% after the UI work is done.
David or Antonio, if you would like to compare: (higlight, alt-p) [ 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ] ] timeToRun. ===> RESULT 17295 (hardware as above)
Milan
Antonio might be reflecting on this same perception of slowness and frankly I'm sure that any amount of "proper scientific testing" is going to reveal that it feels like walking though mud ;-)
Anyway I'm still using a 3.7 image for development. Nice and snappy.
David
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners