Re: [Rosegarden-user] Why is Rosegarden so slow?

[tim h. <te...@gl...>]

Last Wednesday 20 April 2005 18:13, David Mulcahy was like:
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 12:40, tim hall wrote:
> > Last Wednesday 20 April 2005 06:04, Silvan was like:
> > > On Wednesday 20 April 2005 12:40 am, you wrote:
> > > > I have a Pentium 4 2Ghz, with 512MB of RAM. Just load
> > > > a Rosegarden sample score and see that happen. During
> > > > that time, Rosegarden would appear like it has locked up.
> > >
> > > Hrm.  OK, I was asking because Rosegarden is a pretty
> > > resource-intensive application, and it doesn't perform very well on low
> > > spec systems.
> > >
> > > You have basically the same box I do though, and that's not what I'd
> > > consider a low spec system by a long shot.
> > >
> > > How long does it take from clicking the Rosegarden icon (or typing on
> > > the command line) before it is fully up and operational?
> > >
> > > I just timed it (counting seconds in my head, so it's not super
> > > accurate) at about 9 seconds here.
> >
> > Just for a bit of perspective on this, my system (a well optimised
> > 600MHz/256M RAM) takes 18 seconds counting the same way. I'm now using
> > 1.0 btw. :-)
>
> Are we talking about the same thing here just starting rosegarden 1.0 with
> an empty session.  On my PIII 700 udma33HDD it takes seven seconds (from
> within kde of corse).

Hmm, perhaps my machine is not as well optimised as I thought then. Mind you, 
the extra time could be accounted for because of having to fire up the kde 
subsystem, I'm launching from Openbox3. Either way it's acceptable.

cheers,

tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk