Although I love the new IDE, I have a somewhat more negative view of
RB2006 based on application speed and size. In the case of Mac
applications, RB2006R1 is only slightly slower than RB5.5.5 as shown
in the following benchmarks run on a G5,2.7GHz. The numbers should
be interpreted as operations per time. They have no absolute meaning
except that they scale linearly with throughput (higher is faster).
Data for G5,2.7GHz.
benchmark speed 5.5.5 speed 2006R1
Math (long integer) , 1354.5 1197.0
Math (double precision) , 1395.8 1197.0
Math (transcendental) , 1898.8 1559.6
Math (scientific mix) , 1351.3 1467.0
Math (composite score) , 1500.1 1355.3
String Manipulation , 1010.6 1017.8
Graphics (mixed) , 670.5 953.0
Disk Read/Write , 321.2 344.2
Composite Benchmark , 1126.7 1094.2
Thus, 2006R1 is slower for most math (particularly transcendentals)
and faster for graphics. The good news regarding math is that thanks
to Mars, two-dimensional array elements are accessed much faster in
2005/2006 so scientific math routines, which use lots of arrays, run
faster.
Unfortunately, the performance of 2005/2006 is significantly slower
relative to 5.5.5. for math on Pentium 4s but much faster for
graphics (which are slower on the Mac because of buffering, I think).
I found no significant differences for 2005 versus 2006 so the
results are averaged. I have no clue why math has taken such a hit
on PCs. Here is the data from our computer lab. (Use a
non-proportional font to display the following table):
RB version 5.5.5 2005/2006 5.5.5 2005/2006
System G5(2GHz) G5(2GHz) P4(3.6GHz) P4(3.6GHz)
Math (long integer) 1003.4 886.5 1145.9 1011.1
Math (double precision) 1022.8 884.2 1033.0 449.4
Math (transcendental) 1419.8 1173.0 1386.1 792.1
Math (scientific mix) 1004.9 1084.9 1131.2 800.6
Math (composite score) 1112.7 1007.2 1174.1 763.3
String Manipulation 745.5 756.3 896.5 884.0
Graphics (mixed) 501.2 761.2 1482.0 2119.7
Disk Read/Write 481.9 469.7 785.7 807.4
Composite Benchmark 867.2 846.6 1096.8 970.7
Finally, I note that all of my applications are larger in 2005/2006
than in 5.5.5, but the size difference is highly variable. And
RBScript is still broken in 2006 (e.g. report ids: yhlulwic,
vielzvnp, yzkqhxzu, xzqeoexo). Those of us who use RBScript are
still stuck in 5.5.5.
best wishes,
Bob
Thanks all who have responded (so far).
I wonder if any with more negative opinions will chime in. I wonder if
there is any merit to the comments I've read that complain of "strangely
long build times" or "ever increasing file sizes."
I will certainly give the demo a try.
I also hear that it is planned that RB will be able to produce universals.
Any hint as to when that is scheduled?
Cheers,
Phil
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/RB-5.5.5-%28vs.-RB-2006%29--t1304000.html#a3474805
Sent from the REALBasic - Users forum at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
--
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
