Yeah - for one thing it does byte-reverse all the forms on the fly (which is
really painful on a slow machine with a small L2 cache). But what should
help is setting Squeak to 8bit depth. This should be much faster than any
other combination (though it is best if the display driver is set to 8bit as
well). Also, display operations depend *heavily* on the quality of your
graphics driver - I have seen differences up to a factor of three between MS
standard drivers vs. vendor provided drivers (though I've found that Win98
has a better set of drivers coming along with it).

[BTW, another thing is that the interpreter is clearly optimized towards
processors having lots of registers (and Intel processors don't) the effects
of which you can see if you compare the raw bytecode/send speed]

  Andreas
--
+===== Andreas Raab ========= (andreasr at wdi.disney.com) ==+
| Walt Disney Imagineering        Phone: +1 818 544 5016  I
I Glendale, CA                    Fax:   +1 818 544 4544  I
+======< http://isgwww.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~raab >========+


> ----------
> From: 	Bruce ONeel
> Reply To: 	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: 	Friday, September 10, 1999 5:29 AM
> To: 	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Cc: 	recipient list not shown
> Subject: 	Re: Lampson/Thacker to do Dynabook?
> 
> Bob Arning <arning at charm.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:16:14 EDT JArchibald at aol.com wrote:
> > >Similarly, on a Pentium 133 Thinkpad, I find Morphic too slow to
> reasonably 
> > >experiment with.
> > 
> > Isn't that interesting: on a 120 MHz PowerMac, I quite happily stayed in
> Morphic unless it was absolutely necessary to revert to MVC.
> 
> This is very interesting...  My Powerbook 500 which has a 100mhz PPC is
> quite nice in
> morphic.  No cache either.   Squeak must do something which is painful on
> a Pentium
> and not so painful on a PPC.   There has been some chatter about this over
> time.
> 
> cheers
> 
> bruce
>