> This might sound like passing the buck but processors are getting so > fast now, and are due to get faster. The extra speed would help with I'm having problems on 3.4Ghz Xeons, have you got any idea how much it would cost to upgrade them to say Woodcrests? Add logistical costs, downtime for upgrade, licensing issues... ..and the speedup would be on the order of speedup gained by the modification proposed here.
> old machines, but I am not sure a saved half second or so would be much It is generaly assumed that when it comes to user interface, humans perceive delays longer then 0.2s as annoying, and startup of app is one of main user-visible delays. Plus, startup partly depends on disk io/mem io, so you can't talk about faster CPUs bringing any significant changes to those. So, when your pp'ed app starts in 7s, and you wan't to bring it down to under 0.2s, you need 2 orders of magnitude faster system. There are no such systems available today, and won't be for forseeable future. > need I imagine the original programmer would simply design the program > to stay running, and have a "run again" button, or some sort of similar Cool, very nice for maintainability - re-design the whole app because of easily avoidable performance problem. -- Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9 Total Existance Failure
