|
> standalone. Some of my stacks are "image intensive" and this 200 -
1000
> millisecond speed difference that Wilhelm discovered would matter. I'm sure that the cumulative effects of a slower routine will add up, but
the CPU has a greater effect by orders of magnitude. For example, my now aging
G4 466MHz/320Mb seems crashingly slow compared to my XP Athlon 3400 4GHz/512MB.
Yes, obviously we optimize a routine's performance, but a couple of ticks here
or there is hardly going to register on the speed scale when using a go-faster
computer. With RAM and cycles improving and prices dropping, the trend seems to
be to write around things rather optimize them. Otherwise why does MSWord now
need a CD install when a BBC 'B' used a floppy for a word processor? There
seems little point in saving milliseconds when the end-user should simply
get a bigger, better and cheaper machine.
Flame war anyone?
:-))
/H
|
_______________________________________________ metacard mailing list [email protected] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
