Very similar machine to yours, Hans, except a little slower (MBPro 2 GHz. OS X 10.4.10)
19 ms. -- 0.49.3-extended-20071108 19 ms. -- 0.40.3-extended-20071011 17 ms. -- 0.39.3-extended I'm curious what effect the dual-core is having on this, too. I thought I had chud loaded (Apple xcode tool to switch off a core), but I don't, and can't find the damn xcode tools disk. If I do, I'll post results w/ one core. Phil 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 > > > .hc > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Access to computers should be unlimited and total. - the hacker ethic > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
