Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > I devised a quick test of loading speed and did some quick comparisons > on my MacBook Pro 2.4GHz. (I am used to having one of the slowest > machines around, my old 800Mhz Powerbook, so I still have to readjust my > thinking). Here's my times: > > 14ms Pd-0.39.3-extended > 6.5ms Pd-0.40-2 vanilla > 16ms Pd-0.40.3-extended-20071111 > > So on the face of it, it looks like really large time differences. > Percentage-wise it is a large difference, but perceptually, waiting 7ms > vs. 16ms for something to load is not at all meaningful. No human could > tell the difference in the experience unless you were generating sounds > and visuals based on the opening and closing of the patch. > > This is, of course, on a fast machine. 300ms vs 800ms would be a big > perceptual difference, basically it would be the feeling of opening > quick versus a wait. > > I'd be interested to see how this fares on other machines and OSes. I > attached the patches
first time i opened the patch on pd-0.40-2(vanilla): 14-16ms (cannot remember) second time the file was already cached, which gives me a result of 4ms (pretty constant) REALTIME: 4.206 REALTIME: 4.152 REALTIME: 4.127 REALTIME: 3.909 REALTIME: 4.092 REALTIME: 4.225 with pd-0.41-CVS (vanilla) i get: REALTIME: 6.953 REALTIME: 4.308 REALTIME: 4.579 REALTIME: 4.206 btw, did you now that you can use the "." as the path for "pd open"? few people i know will have the patch downloaded to /Users/hans/desktop fmga.dr IOhannes _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list