totoro wrote: >> Efficiency is overrated. Just go get a Quad processor system from >> Intel. > > As far as the efficiency thing goes: you can't expect users to get a > quad processor machine for slimserver. :).
How long do you think we'll go before you can't buy a "pc" that isn't at least dual core. I think all the Macs are already. Its just a matter of time. My SlimServer is an ancient crock box I had laying around. The first one was a P3-500, the current one is some AMD 2400+. My next real computer will be dual if not quad, and in a few years, it will be too slow for work, and will become a slimserver. > would _probably_ get a speedup, not that it would necessarily. That > being said, given the better support for concurrency, better profiling > tools, etc available in c++, and the fact that in general it's just a > lot faster (given equally well written code in both languages), I'd be > pretty surprised if it didn't get sped up. You're again getting into religion. The concurrency issue is debatable. The important thing is that the SlimServer is a GUI/Database program. Nothing is going to speed those parts up as long as they are sequential. And splitting them into threads, processes, tasks, etc. is doable in any modern language. The SlimServer just doesn't do that much. > That being said, the whole idea is bad, unless there is some really > compelling reason for it. It seems that everyone is in agreement that > there is not. Agreed. There are other, low hanging fruit. And while they are at it, can someone please kill off the evil MP3 ID3.v1 tags.... -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
