From: david <gn...@ha...> - 2010-02-24 02:49:40
|
D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Andrew wrote: > >> While hardware upgrades are good and desired, "upgrade your hardware" >> should not be a knee-jerk response to "the code is running a bit slow" or >> "this feature slows things down" > > I don't think I ever chimed in on this line of discussion. > > As far as "upgrade your hardware" as a response... Thanks to user support, I > am able to afford a pretty decent development box in spite of my low-paying > day job. I've got a Core2 Quad running at 2.33 GHz with 8 GB of RAM. > > The new Rosegarden is often *painfully* slow on this machine. "Upgrade your > hardware" isn't even a viable response to these problems. Upgrade it to WHAT, > pray tell? So "upgrade your hardware" is just rubbish after a certain point. That's scary. My fastest machine here is a Sempron 3000+, an efficient but single-core processor running at 1.8GHz with 1GB of RAM. My main music machines are running Celeron processors - one an old-style 2.8GHz with 768MB RAM, the other a Celeron M at 1.5GHz with 2GB of RAM. RG 1.7.x on both is quite usable, not slow at all. (It was slow when the first machine only had 512MB of RAM, some of which was bad.) > I'm not sure where I'd draw the baseline on this new Rosegarden. It's got to > be higher than it used to be, because we'll never extract that much efficiency > out of this codebase, but it shouldn't be higher than the line I'm sitting at > now. > > What we can do about these performance problems, I really don't know off the > top of my head. Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot of careful analysis, > a lot of time, and it's going to be a gradual, incremental thing. We've > already gotten all of the big gains I think we're likely to see, so it's a > laborious whittling process from here. I suspect a hunk of the performance problems lie in the still-being-refined QT4 ... -- David gn...@ha... authenticity, honesty, community |