lauradoodleuk wrote:
> I believe that Darryl, like Ed and me, uses Windows XP. I just don't
> understand why we get such different experiences with Maven and
> Quackle. Neither Quackle nor Maven could be described as "whizzing"
> at any time for me. Can anyone answer that question? And my previous
> one about why XP is so much worse than ME was?
I am not an authority on Windows, but I know that Maven was written back
in the days when Windows 3.1 (remember that anyone?) was current.
Windows XP is completely different from Windows 3.1, and while it will
run old code, it does it using a kind of emulation, ie. it pretends to
look like Windows 3.1 for the old software. In order to do this, it has
to use more processing power, and I guess that's why Maven runs more
slowly on it than it does on the older generation of Windows.
Quackle's simming code is probably quite different from Maven's so
comparing the speed of the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
However, with fast computers and new code, I guess people would like
Quackle to be able to sim much faster.
I suddenly had an idea... with so many people on broadband these days,
what if there was a [EMAIL PROTECTED] project to distribute simulations
across several computers, and allowed users to submit their positions
for analysis and getting the results back in a few seconds, rather than
waiting for minutes... sadly, I don't know much about distributed
computing myself to even know where to begin. I suppose we'd need to
start with the API to the quackle library, so that a client can be
written.
--
Anand
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quackle/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
