On 25-Aug-05, at 11:48 AM, Günther Schmidt wrote:

> Thanks all,
>
> that's interesting news. I wasn't aware that there is indeed a problem 
> with Morphics performance.
There are some very simplistic and non-scaling algorithms involved in 
Morphic displaying and updating. To observe this you need only open a 
couple of windows and then add a third; it will typically open fairly 
quickly. Now add another dozen. Watch how long the last one takes.

You can also experiment with turning off the deferred displaying to see 
just how much gets rendered when a top window is moved or closed. I 
strongly suspect that some careful consideration of the algorithms used 
might result in dramatic improvements.

Referring back to the comment that the VM is about 10% faster since 2.8 
- it depends a lot on what you consider a suitable benchmark. For a 
general picture I wouldn't take any notice of anything less than the 
full Benchmark package. The trivial bytecode loop + recursive send 
tests are not much more meaningful than a slashdot poll. On my machine 
the latest VMs are nearly three >times< as fast as the 2.8 ones. I have 
no doubt that on some machines the difference might be minimal - it all 
depends on compilers and options used, OS version etc etc etc.

tim
-- 
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim