There was already a discussion about this, search for the subject 'Pharo on Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks’.
On 28 Oct 2013, at 18:37, Thomas Kendelbacher <[email protected]> wrote: > A greater than, say, 1% base CPU load from an otherwise idle application > would indicate that it's doing some busy waiting somewhere... in my Activity > Monitor, I don't see too many processes doing that, so just using an ObjC > framework doesn't seem to be the guilty part. By the way, very old versions > of VisualWorks used to be bad in that way, but not any more; so there is > something that can be done about it. > > A large virtual memory working set wouldn't help either for power efficiency, > though with today's RAM sizes it's probably less important. > > On Oct 28, 2013, at 11:46, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> It’s not about the thing that it uses 5% CPU. Apple does some magic with >> optimisation so they group threads in order to reduce power usage. And Pharo >> is not good at that. I’m not telling that Pharo is slow. Battery lasts >> longer with Safari compared to Chrome. Probably with Pharo it’s something >> similar. >> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 17:31, dimitris chloupis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I would not worry too much over this. I have MenuMeters even before I was >>> introduced to smalltalk over a year ago and Pharo is steadily reported >>> consuming a 5% of my CPU which is average for an ObjC app on Macos 10.7 >>> >>> http://www.ragingmenace.com/software/menumeters/ >>> >>> So personally I am impressed with pharo speed so far. A big thumbs up from >>> me. Also take into account that even though MacOS is a great OS it comes >>> with its own fair share of bugs, especially the first year of its release >>> so I would not put too much attention into this if I was you. >>> >>> On Monday, 28 October 2013, 18:08, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Now with Mavericks we can tell that Pharo is hungry for energy :) >>> >>> <Screenshot 2013-10-28 17.05.48.png> >>> >>> Cheers! >>> Uko >
