/ Forside / Teknologi / Hardware / Mac / Nyhedsindlæg
Login
Glemt dit kodeord?
Brugernavn

Kodeord


Reklame
Top 10 brugere
Mac
#NavnPoint
UlrikB 4810
kipros 1675
Klaudi 1010
myg 920
pifo 907
Stouenberg 838
molokyle 830
Bille1948 815
rotw 760
10  EXTERMINA.. 750
.net på mac
Fra : Matthiessen


Dato : 24-01-03 22:51

Fandt nogle gamle artikler, som handlede om hvorvidt .net blev portet til
MacOS X

nogen der har nogle up-to-date informationer ?

/Anders



 
 
Mikkel Pagh (24-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Mikkel Pagh


Dato : 24-01-03 23:49

Matthiessen <matthiessenNIX@dioderNIX.dk> wrote:

> Fandt nogle gamle artikler, som handlede om hvorvidt .net blev portet til
> MacOS X
>
> nogen der har nogle up-to-date informationer ?

Måske ikke så direkte, men på Salon er der en artikel om .Net vs. Java.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/01/21/java/index.html

Så vidt jeg har forstået, er der et Java-lignende programmeringssprog
kaldet C# indbygget i .Net, som vil være en konkurrent til Java.

Artiklen siger, at C# vil kunne virke på andre platforme, men ikke så
godt som på Windows, da MS ikke er interesserede i at rette bugs etc. på
samme måde som Sun er med Java.

MS i retten blevet pålagt at integrere Java i .Net, hvilket betyder at
Java har en bedre chance for at klare sig fremover.

Om det bliver Java eller C# der kommer til at blive standarden fremover
er endnu et ret åbent spørgsmål, men hvis Win-monopolet skal brydes, vil
Java være løsningen. Forestil dig hvad der sker, når den samme version
af Word kan køre på Windows såvel som Linux og Mac.

--
Mikkel Pagh
Berlin
http://www.galleri-tanderup.dk/berlin/

Povl H. Pedersen (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Povl H. Pedersen


Dato : 25-01-03 00:09

In article <1fpbdpj.1qnutud1m1pgteN%spiced.pork@ham.com>, Mikkel Pagh wrote:
> Matthiessen <matthiessenNIX@dioderNIX.dk> wrote:
>
>> Fandt nogle gamle artikler, som handlede om hvorvidt .net blev portet til
>> MacOS X
>>
>> nogen der har nogle up-to-date informationer ?
>
> Måske ikke så direkte, men på Salon er der en artikel om .Net vs. Java.
>
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/01/21/java/index.html
>
> Så vidt jeg har forstået, er der et Java-lignende programmeringssprog
> kaldet C# indbygget i .Net, som vil være en konkurrent til Java.
>
> Artiklen siger, at C# vil kunne virke på andre platforme, men ikke så
> godt som på Windows, da MS ikke er interesserede i at rette bugs etc. på
> samme måde som Sun er med Java.

På andre platforme vil man vel vælge at køre Mono, som er
en Open Source version uden MS bugs..
>
> MS i retten blevet pålagt at integrere Java i .Net, hvilket betyder at
> Java har en bedre chance for at klare sig fremover.

Forkert, om mindre end 120 dage må Microsoft ikke længere sælge
en eneste kopi af Windows uden at Java er installeret.

Den nye Windows server version bliver heller ikke hverken
..net, .not eller .snot. Microsoft har fundet ud af, at ved at
klistre klistermærket på alt muligt skrammel der virker som
det gamle, så har de ødelagt varemærket. Så nu vil de holde
lidt igen med at bruge .net betegnelsen.

> Om det bliver Java eller C# der kommer til at blive standarden fremover
> er endnu et ret åbent spørgsmål, men hvis Win-monopolet skal brydes, vil
> Java være løsningen. Forestil dig hvad der sker, når den samme version
> af Word kan køre på Windows såvel som Linux og Mac.

Der er mere C kode en Java og C# tilsammen.

--
To get blacklisted please mail to listme@listme.dsbl.org
Writing to the above address will blacklist your mailserver.
Hvis du skriver til ovenstående e-mail bliver din mailserver blacklistet.

Per Rønne (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 25-01-03 05:45

Mikkel Pagh <spiced.pork@ham.com> wrote:

> Om det bliver Java eller C# der kommer til at blive standarden fremover
> er endnu et ret åbent spørgsmål, men hvis Win-monopolet skal brydes, vil
> Java være løsningen. Forestil dig hvad der sker, når den samme version
> af Word kan køre på Windows såvel som Linux og Mac.

Jeg har ingen java-erfaring, men så vidt jeg ved kører java-programmer
væsenligt langsommere end andre programmer. Fortolkes de?
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

Mikkel Pagh (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Mikkel Pagh


Dato : 25-01-03 09:15

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> Jeg har ingen java-erfaring, men så vidt jeg ved kører java-programmer
> væsenligt langsommere end andre programmer. Fortolkes de?

Programmerne køres gennem en "virtual machine" ligesom fx Virtual PC.

Ifølge artiklen på Salon skulle hastigheden dog nu være oppe på siden af
andre sprog.

På Mac'en er Java-implementationen dog endnu ikke helt så hurtig som på
andre platforme ( i hvert fald Solaris, Windows).

--
Mikkel Pagh
Berlin
http://www.galleri-tanderup.dk/berlin/

Per Rønne (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 25-01-03 09:24

Mikkel Pagh <spiced.pork@ham.com> wrote:

> Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> > Jeg har ingen java-erfaring, men så vidt jeg ved kører java-programmer
> > væsenligt langsommere end andre programmer. Fortolkes de?

> Programmerne køres gennem en "virtual machine" ligesom fx Virtual PC.

Altså en fortolkning, og dermed langsommere.

> Ifølge artiklen på Salon skulle hastigheden dog nu være oppe på siden af
> andre sprog.

Næppe, da disse programmer jo så er kompilerede.

I øvrigt har jeg med WinBench kunnet måle min VirtualPC til at køre med
533 MHz [Pentium II med MMX]. På min G4/867 med 640 M. Og med Windows
2000 Pro installeret. Det gør ikke den fjerneste forskel om der bruges
VPC 5 eller 6.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

Mikkel Pagh (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Mikkel Pagh


Dato : 25-01-03 09:56

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> > Ifølge artiklen på Salon skulle hastigheden dog nu være oppe på siden af
> > andre sprog.
>
> Næppe, da disse programmer jo så er kompilerede.

Okay, ikke oppe på siden af, men i nærheden af.

Fra Google (desværre uden dato):
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:nuj91yqYoBIC:www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/j
pohto/tktv/documents/ppoint.ppt+java+c%2B%2B+speed&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"The Java programming language has become a cosiderable alternative to
server side software development. However the computational speed of
partly interpreted Java code has scared software developers.

Just In Time â¤"compilers have advanced the computational speed of code
executed in Java Virtual Machines almost to the level of C++ native
code."

Spørgsmålet er så, om det er hurtigt nok til at programmerne vil blive
udviklet i Java.

I øvrigt skulle Java være særdeles let at programmere i, hvilket vel
også gør en forskel for udviklerne.

--
Mikkel Pagh
Berlin
http://www.galleri-tanderup.dk/berlin/

Per Rønne (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 25-01-03 10:42

Mikkel Pagh <spiced.pork@ham.com> wrote:

> I øvrigt skulle Java være særdeles let at programmere i, hvilket vel
> også gør en forskel for udviklerne.

Jeg må indrømme at jeg aldrig har sat mig blot nogenlunde ind i Java. Er
det ikke et C++ derivat?
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~ (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~


Dato : 25-01-03 11:10

spiced.pork@ham.com (Mikkel Pagh) writes:

> I øvrigt skulle Java være særdeles let at programmere i, hvilket vel
> også gør en forskel for udviklerne.



Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~ (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~


Dato : 25-01-03 11:04

per@ronne.invalid (Per Rønne) writes:

> > Programmerne køres gennem en "virtual machine" ligesom fx Virtual PC.
>
> Altså en fortolkning, og dermed langsommere.

Så enkelt er det altså ikke.

Java har fundet en rigtig god niche i webserverapplikationsverdenen
hvor man snakker databasekommunikation og netværkstrafik, og hvor
applikationen oftest er bundet af I/O. Her er der en enorm force i
Java-modellens kontrollering af alting som rigeligt opvejer den let
foringede hastighed.

Java-sproget har iøvrigt følgende fordele, som C ikke har:

* Automatisk check af at arrayindeksering er gyldig.
* Automatisk frigivelse af objekter der ikke bruges mere.

Du kan selv filosofere over hvilken forskel det gør i sikkerhed.

Herudover er der en stor fordel i at man kan afvikle på en vilkårlig
platform (som er anderledes end den man udvikler på). Hvis du bruger
native code, er du tvunget til at afteste alting på
produktionsmaskinen i bund.
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "... plus ... Tubular Bells!"
http://bigfoot.com/~thunderbear

René Frej Nielsen (26-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 26-01-03 13:28

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> I øvrigt har jeg med WinBench kunnet måle min VirtualPC til at køre med
> 533 MHz [Pentium II med MMX]. På min G4/867 med 640 M. Og med Windows
> 2000 Pro installeret. Det gør ikke den fjerneste forskel om der bruges
> VPC 5 eller 6.

Hmm... de 533 Mhz får den vist oplyst fra Virtual PC. "Maskinen" skal jo
have en eller anden fiktiv hastighed. Jeg får præcis samme tal på min
maskine, uanset om jeg laver andet på den mens testen kører.

Det du skal se på er resultaterne af testen. Du vil nok se, at din
maskine på ingen måde kan hamle op med en Pentium II 533 MHz, ja måske
ikke engang en Pentium 133. I Virtual PC altså.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (26-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 26-01-03 14:22

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> > I øvrigt har jeg med WinBench kunnet måle min VirtualPC til at køre med
> > 533 MHz [Pentium II med MMX]. På min G4/867 med 640 M. Og med Windows
> > 2000 Pro installeret. Det gør ikke den fjerneste forskel om der bruges
> > VPC 5 eller 6.

> Hmm... de 533 Mhz får den vist oplyst fra Virtual PC. "Maskinen" skal jo
> have en eller anden fiktiv hastighed. Jeg får præcis samme tal på min
> maskine, uanset om jeg laver andet på den mens testen kører.

Faktisk får den kun 533 MHz efter at »harddisken«, containerfilen,
defragmenteret. Ellers gav den 525 MHz.

> Det du skal se på er resultaterne af testen. Du vil nok se, at din
> maskine på ingen måde kan hamle op med en Pentium II 533 MHz, ja måske
> ikke engang en Pentium 133. I Virtual PC altså.

Faktisk har jeg i længere tid »følt« at Windows 2000 Pro under VPC på
min G4/867/640 kørte »en anelse hurtigere« end den gør på den Compaq
Armada E500 laptop som min fagforening har stillet til rådighed for mig.
Den er på 450 MHz og med 128 M RAM.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

René Frej Nielsen (26-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 26-01-03 14:56

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > I øvrigt har jeg med WinBench kunnet måle min VirtualPC til at køre med
> > > 533 MHz [Pentium II med MMX]. På min G4/867 med 640 M. Og med Windows
> > > 2000 Pro installeret. Det gør ikke den fjerneste forskel om der bruges
> > > VPC 5 eller 6.
>
> > Hmm... de 533 Mhz får den vist oplyst fra Virtual PC. "Maskinen" skal jo
> > have en eller anden fiktiv hastighed. Jeg får præcis samme tal på min
> > maskine, uanset om jeg laver andet på den mens testen kører.
>
> Faktisk får den kun 533 MHz efter at »harddisken«, containerfilen,
> defragmenteret. Ellers gav den 525 MHz.

Jamen, programmet tester jo ikke for clockfrekvens! Det er jo bare en
oplysning fra "processoren" i Virtual PC. Hvordan vil du have at et
testprogram kan finde clockfrekvensen på en processor ud fra en række
tests? En AMD processor kører typisk ved lavere frekvenser end Intels,
men alligvel yder den det samme. Det gør det umuligt at lave den slags
tests.

Det du skal se på er _resultaterne_ af testen.

> > Det du skal se på er resultaterne af testen. Du vil nok se, at din
> > maskine på ingen måde kan hamle op med en Pentium II 533 MHz, ja måske
> > ikke engang en Pentium 133. I Virtual PC altså.
>
> Faktisk har jeg i længere tid »følt« at Windows 2000 Pro under VPC på
> min G4/867/640 kørte »en anelse hurtigere« end den gør på den Compaq
> Armada E500 laptop som min fagforening har stillet til rådighed for mig.
> Den er på 450 MHz og med 128 M RAM.

Så skal den godt nok være langsom! Prøv at køre Winbench på den bærbare
og sammenlign resultaterne, evt. put dem på nettet.

En bærbar har typisk en langsom harddisk og 128 MB RAM er ikke meget til
Windows 2000, men alligevel ville jeg skyde sådan en maskine til at være
mange gange hurtigere end VPC på en hvilkensomhelts Mac.

Er din maskine egentlig en dual 867 (som min) eller en single? Kører du
OS 9 eller OS X?

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (26-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 26-01-03 15:52

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> > Faktisk har jeg i længere tid »følt« at Windows 2000 Pro under VPC på
> > min G4/867/640 kørte »en anelse hurtigere« end den gør på den Compaq
> > Armada E500 laptop som min fagforening har stillet til rådighed for mig.
> > Den er på 450 MHz og med 128 M RAM.

> Så skal den godt nok være langsom! Prøv at køre Winbench på den bærbare
> og sammenlign resultaterne, evt. put dem på nettet.

Jeg har kørt WinBench på laptoppen. Den sagde 450 MHz.

På VPC har resultaterne varieret mellem 525 [fragmenteret »harddisk«] og
533 [ufragmenteret »harddisk«]. Jeg har også of WinBench fået den
yderligere oplysning, at den faktisk har målt den faktiske ydeevne til
540 MHz i stedet for de 533 MHz.

> En bærbar har typisk en langsom harddisk og 128 MB RAM er ikke meget til
> Windows 2000, men alligevel ville jeg skyde sådan en maskine til at være
> mange gange hurtigere end VPC på en hvilkensomhelts Mac.

> Er din maskine egentlig en dual 867 (som min) eller en single?

Single.

> Kører du OS 9 eller OS X?

OS X. Jeg har endnu ikke testet den på OS 9. Men testen er gennemført
med VPC i fuld skærm, og med alle MacOS X programmer kvittet. Men
naturligvis ikke alle /processer/ kvittet.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

René Frej Nielsen (26-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 26-01-03 16:12

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> Jeg har kørt WinBench på laptoppen. Den sagde 450 MHz.

Netop.

> På VPC har resultaterne varieret mellem 525 [fragmenteret »harddisk«] og
> 533 [ufragmenteret »harddisk«]. Jeg har også of WinBench fået den
> yderligere oplysning, at den faktisk har målt den faktiske ydeevne til
> 540 MHz i stedet for de 533 MHz.

Jeg tror at den målte hastighed svinger alt efter om din maskine lige
har haft andet at lave eller er "i godt humør". Dette er selvfølgelig
rent gætteri.

Det er bare spøjst at jeg får nøjagtig samme resultat som dig på en
nyere maskine, der endda har en ekstra processor til aflastning. Hvis
min teori holder, så burde den også måle ca. 533 Mhz på en Dual 1,25 Ghz
maskine.

> > Kører du OS 9 eller OS X?
>
> OS X. Jeg har endnu ikke testet den på OS 9. Men testen er gennemført
> med VPC i fuld skærm, og med alle MacOS X programmer kvittet. Men
> naturligvis ikke alle /processer/ kvittet.

Jeg har også OS X og kunne egentlig godt tænke mig at prøve, om den er
hurtigere i OS 9. Jeg har været med på VPC-vognen lige siden version 1.0
og dengang var det på en PowerCenter Pro 180, som var opgraderet med en
420 Mhz G3. Som jeg husker det, så kørte det hurtigere end den nyeste
version på min Dual 867 maskine, men det kan selvfølgelig være
hukommelsen der spiller mig et puds.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (26-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 26-01-03 20:54

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Jeg har også OS X og kunne egentlig godt tænke mig at prøve, om den er
> hurtigere i OS 9.

Jeg har lige prøvekørt den på OS 9 [VPC5]. Den siger i starten at
processoren er på 525 MHz, men efter kørslen reducerer den det til 510
MHz, samtidig med at den bemærker at testen viste at den kørte som 550
MHz. Så lidt forvirret kan man godt blive.

Der er dog faste holdepunkter. VPC6 synes ikke at være hurtigere end
VPC5, om det er OS 9 eller OS X gør ingen forskel [eller er VPC
indrettet til skjule noget?] og hastigheden ligger mellem 500 og 550
MHz.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

René Frej Nielsen (27-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 27-01-03 00:33

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> Jeg har lige prøvekørt den på OS 9 [VPC5]. Den siger i starten at
> processoren er på 525 MHz, men efter kørslen reducerer den det til 510
> MHz, samtidig med at den bemærker at testen viste at den kørte som 550
> MHz. Så lidt forvirret kan man godt blive.
>
> Der er dog faste holdepunkter. VPC6 synes ikke at være hurtigere end
> VPC5, om det er OS 9 eller OS X gør ingen forskel [eller er VPC
> indrettet til skjule noget?] og hastigheden ligger mellem 500 og 550
> MHz.

Jamen, hvad med resultatet på selve benchmarken? De der Mhz-målinger kan
vi ikke bruge til noget.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (27-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 27-01-03 04:06

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Jeg har lige prøvekørt den på OS 9 [VPC5]. Den siger i starten at
> > processoren er på 525 MHz, men efter kørslen reducerer den det til 510
> > MHz, samtidig med at den bemærker at testen viste at den kørte som 550
> > MHz. Så lidt forvirret kan man godt blive.
> >
> > Der er dog faste holdepunkter. VPC6 synes ikke at være hurtigere end
> > VPC5, om det er OS 9 eller OS X gør ingen forskel [eller er VPC
> > indrettet til skjule noget?] og hastigheden ligger mellem 500 og 550
> > MHz.
>
> Jamen, hvad med resultatet på selve benchmarken? De der Mhz-målinger kan
> vi ikke bruge til noget.

Hvad mener du mere specifikt med det?

WEIGHTED SUITE SCORE UNITS

Business Disk WinMark 99 2000 [3,4,41] Thousand Bytes/Sec
High-End Disk WinMark 99 6270 [3,4,43] Thousand Bytes/Sec
Business Graphics WinMark 99 40.4 [3,4,126,127,128]
High-End Graphics WinMark 99 157 [3,4,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]

TEST SCORE UNITS

DirectDraw/Animate Screen Size, 640x480 74 [1,2,3,4] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Screen Size, 800x600 73 [2,3,4,5] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Screen Size, 1024x768 69.1 [2,3,4,6] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Screen Size, 1152x864 73.8 [2,3,4,7] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Screen Size, 1280x1024 73 [2,3,4,8] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Screen Size, 1600x1200 77.6 [2,3,4,9] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Color Depth, 8 bit 72 [2,3,4,10] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Color Depth, 16 bit 58.2 [2,3,4,11] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Color Depth, 24 bit No Result [3,4,12] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Color Depth, 32 bit No Result [3,4,13,14] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate BltFast 73.8 [2,3,4,15] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Blt 69.2 [2,3,4,16] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Solid 58.6 [2,3,4,17] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Transparent 58 [2,3,4,18] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Full Screen No Result [3,4,14,19] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Windowed No Result [3,4,14,20] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Clipped No Result [3,4,14,21] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Memory, Source in video, Work area in video 74.1
[2,3,4,22] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Memory, Source in system, Work area in video 62.1
[2,3,4,23] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Memory, Source in video, Work area in system 111
[2,3,4,24] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Memory, Source in system, Work area in system 111
[2,3,4,25] Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate BLT size, 256 pixels 15 [2,3,4,26] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate BLT size, 1024 pixels Failed [3,27,28] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate BLT size, 4096 pixels 74.8 [2,3,4,29] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Stretch, Solid, 2.0x, 8 bit 110 [2,3,4,30]
Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Stretch, Solid, 1.7x, 8 bit 24.1 [2,3,4,31]
Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Stretch, Transparent, 1.7x, 8 bit 20.2 [2,3,4,32]
Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Stretch, Solid, 1.7x, 16 bit 16.5 [2,3,4,33]
Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Stretch, Solid, 1.7x, 24 bit No Result [3,4,12]
Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Animate Stretch, Solid, 1.7x, 32 bit Failed [3,27,28]
Million Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Fill Color Depth, 8 bit color 81.6 [2,3,4,34] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Fill Color Depth, 16 bit color 209 [2,3,4,35] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Fill Color Depth, 24 bit color No Result [3,4,12] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/Fill Color Depth, 32 bit color 109 [2,3,4,36] Million
Pixels/Sec
DirectDraw/User Defined Not Run Million Pixels/Sec
Disk Transfer Rate [3,4,37]
Beginning 50500 Thousand Bytes/Sec
End 63800 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Disk Access Time 5.19 [3,4,38] Milliseconds
Disk CPU Utilization 26.8 [3,4,39,40] Percent Used
Disk Playback/Bus [3,4,41,42]
Overall 2000 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Disk Playback/HE [3,4,42,43]
Overall 6270 Thousand Bytes/Sec
AVS/Express 3.4 8350 Thousand Bytes/Sec
FrontPage 98 18500 Thousand Bytes/Sec
MicroStation SE 9970 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Photoshop 4.0 5160 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Premiere 4.2 2940 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Sound Forge 4.0 8890 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Visual C++ 5.0 5100 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Disk Playback/Removable Media 1020 [3,4,42,44] Thousand Bytes/Sec
GDI/CToS/BitBlt, All ROPs 14.7 [3,4,45] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/CToS/BitBlt, SRCCOPY 48.2 [3,4,46] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/CToS/StretchBlt, All ROPs 2.81 [3,4,47] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/CToS/StretchBlt, SRCCOPY 6.17 [3,4,48] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/MToS/BitBlt, All ROPs 15.4 [3,4,49] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/MToS/BitBlt, SRCCOPY 46.2 [3,4,50] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/MToS/StretchBlt, All ROPs 6.02 [3,4,51] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/MToS/StretchBlt, SRCCOPY 2.89 [3,4,52] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Arc, Circular, Complete 0.788 [3,4,53] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Arc, Circular, Partial 0.649 [3,4,54] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Arc, Elliptical, Complete 0.805 [3,4,55] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Arc, Elliptical, Partial 0.647 [3,4,56] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/BltDIBits, 1 bpp, SRCCOPY 2.93 [3,4,57] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/BltDIBits, 24 bpp, SRCCOPY 1.67 [3,4,58] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/BltDIBits, 4 bpp, SRCCOPY 2.76 [3,4,59] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/BltDIBits, 8 bpp, SRCCOPY 2.38 [3,4,60] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/BltDIBits, SRCCOPY, User Supplied Bitmap Not Run Million
Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Chord, Circular 5.45 [3,4,61] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Chord, Elliptical 5.49 [3,4,62] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Circle 9.56 [3,4,63] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Ellipse 9.37 [3,4,64] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/ExtFloodFill, Border 0.0919 [3,4,65] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/ExtFloodFill, Surface 0.0919 [3,4,66] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/FillRgn 49.8 [3,4,67] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/FloodFill 0.093 [3,4,68] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/FrameRgn 0.386 [3,4,69] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/GetNearestColor 269000 [3,4,70] Operations/Second
GDI/S/InvertRgn 54.3 [3,4,71] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Line, Diagonal 2.52 [3,4,72] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Line, Horizontal 3.79 [3,4,73] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Line, Vertical 2.12 [3,4,74] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/MoveTo 4530000 [3,4,75] Operations/Second
GDI/S/MoveToEx 4280000 [3,4,76] Operations/Second
GDI/S/PaintRgn 48.5 [3,4,77] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/PatBlt, All ROPs 65.3 [3,4,78] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/PatBlt, DESTINVERT 64.7 [3,4,79] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/PatBlt, PATCOPY 69.7 [3,4,80] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/PatBlt, WHITENESS 87.3 [3,4,81] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Pie, Circular 5.4 [3,4,82] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Pie, Elliptical 5.26 [3,4,83] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Polygon, Few-sides 11.4 [3,4,84] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Polygon, Many-sides 8.02 [3,4,85] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Polygon, Trapezoid 18.2 [3,4,86] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Polygon, Triangle 13.7 [3,4,87] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsBlt, 1 bpp 29.8 [3,4,88] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsBlt, 24 bpp 13.2 [3,4,89] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsBlt, 4 bpp 18 [3,4,90] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsBlt, 8 bpp 19.4 [3,4,91] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsBlt, User Supplied Bitmap Not Run Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsToDevice, 1 bpp 24.9 [3,4,92] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsToDevice, 24 bpp 4.7 [3,4,93] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsToDevice, 4 bpp 12.1 [3,4,94] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsToDevice, 8 bpp 8.96 [3,4,95] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/SetDIBitsToDevice, User Supplied Bitmap Not Run Million
Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/StretchDIBits, 1 bpp, SRCCOPY 2.69 [3,4,96] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/StretchDIBits, 24 bpp, SRCCOPY 1.73 [3,4,97] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/StretchDIBits, 4 bpp, SRCCOPY 2.44 [3,4,98] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/StretchDIBits, 8 bpp, SRCCOPY 2.19 [3,4,99] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/StretchDIBits, SRCCOPY, User Supplied Bitmap Not Run Million
Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Text, Times Roman 16 21.4 [3,4,100] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Text, Times Roman 16, 45 5.3 [3,4,101] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/S/Text, Times Roman 16, 90 11.7 [3,4,102] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/SToS/BitBlt, All ROPs 2.93 [3,4,103] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/SToS/BitBlt, SRCCOPY 35.4 [3,4,104] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/SToS/StretchBlt, All ROPs 1.52 [3,4,105] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI/SToS/StretchBlt, SRCCOPY 1.79 [3,4,106] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/DrawFocusRect 4.36 [3,4,107] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/DrawIcon 5.75 [3,4,108] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/DrawText, Times Roman 16 11.3 [3,4,109] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/FillRect 61.3 [3,4,110] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/FrameRect 4.75 [3,4,111] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/GrayString, Times Roman 16 5.85 [3,4,112] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/InvertRect 66.6 [3,4,113] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/ScrollDC 53.4 [3,4,114] Million Pixels/Sec
USER/S/TabbedTextOut, Times Roman 16 12 [3,4,115] Million Pixels/Sec
GDI Playback/HE/AVS/Express 3.4 40.4 [3,4,116]
GDI Playback/HE/FrontPage 98 32.9 [3,4,117]
GDI Playback/HE/MicroStation SE 4.15 [3,4,118]
GDI Playback/HE/Photoshop 4.0 20.3 [3,4,119]
GDI Playback/HE/Premiere 4.2 17.2 [3,4,120]
GDI Playback/HE/Sound Forge 4.0 41.7 [3,4,121]
GDI Playback/HE/Visual C++ 5.0 58.1 [3,4,122]
GDI Playback/HE/MicroStation SE MP 1.86 [3,4,123]
GDI Playback/HE/Photoshop 4.0 MP 23.4 [3,4,124]
GDI Playback/HE/Visual C++ 5.0 MP 115 [3,4,125]

Legend: Best Score, Intermediate Score, Worst Score, Training Run,
Variances > 3%

NOTES

[1] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 575077042 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[2] The refresh rate was 75 Hz.
[3] Common test settings: Disk Drive=c:\ Report CPU Utilization=No
[4] The following Windows tasks were running during this test and
could affect the test results: CDANTSRV.EXE, iFinger.exe, internat.exe,
mspmspsv.exe, Twalink.exe, VPCMap.exe, VPCSRVC.EXE, WinMgmt.exe
[5] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 563738801 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[6] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 564714099 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[7] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 575151256 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[8] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 582564482 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[9] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 596785833 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[10] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 559241468 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[11] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 561279911 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[12] The video card/monitor does not support this video mode.
[13] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 1494616686 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[14] The video card does not have enough memory for this test.
[15] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 563020019 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[16] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 560493527 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[17] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 559750907 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[18] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 561250120 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[19] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 652719489 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[20] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 573335829 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[21] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 667685260 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[22] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 561470950 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[23] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 551368271 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[24] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 551027563 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[25] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 556362591 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[26] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 557225331 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 532057782 Hz (533 MHz).
[27] The system crashed during the execution of the test.
[28] The following Windows tasks were running during this test and
could affect the test results: CDANTSRV.EXE, iFinger.exe, internat.exe,
mspmspsv.exe, savedump.exe, Twalink.exe, VPCMap.exe, VPCSRVC.EXE,
WinMgmt.exe, WinMgmt.exe
[29] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 639914361 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 529680040 Hz (533 MHz).
[30] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 546069026 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 529680040 Hz (533 MHz).
[31] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 545660121 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 529680040 Hz (533 MHz).
[32] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 545316601 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 529680040 Hz (533 MHz).
[33] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 543667736 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 529680040 Hz (533 MHz).
[34] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 653598029 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[35] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 558019593 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[36] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 554503963 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[37] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 534696445 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[38] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 538663419 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[39] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 531936956 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[40] The transfer rate during this test averaged 4000 thousand bytes
per second.
[41] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 533466463 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[42] The playback directory was c:\~wbdtmp
[43] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 534357438 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[44] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 541280684 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[45] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 617152940 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[46] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 610980404 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[47] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 609264050 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[48] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 612820534 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[49] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 613150393 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[50] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 621401281 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[51] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 604313346 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[52] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 608114589 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[53] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 612569686 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[54] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 603286387 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[55] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 619940281 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[56] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 606157154 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[57] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 604175837 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[58] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 593820505 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[59] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 607304946 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[60] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 606337596 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[61] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 628129168 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[62] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 614130644 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[63] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 637184882 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[64] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 625713892 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[65] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 615269974 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[66] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 617321765 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[67] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 616210345 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[68] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 614930645 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[69] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 558548380 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[70] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 547254450 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[71] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 629889603 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[72] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 637487414 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[73] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 551835655 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[74] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 628465599 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[75] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 536693827 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[76] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 537261465 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[77] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 614438145 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[78] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 604377873 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[79] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 626989579 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[80] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 619401442 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[81] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 631301199 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[82] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 613455523 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[83] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 617358348 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[84] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 630572364 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[85] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 626031691 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[86] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 636389836 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[87] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 649567405 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[88] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 612733603 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[89] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 604860388 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[90] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 604660499 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[91] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 609979673 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[92] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 586146559 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[93] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 604322704 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[94] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 609417527 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[95] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 609468113 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[96] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 609047934 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[97] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 574759283 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[98] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 609523865 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[99] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 604006354 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[100] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 573717368 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[101] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 630128368 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[102] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 634236156 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[103] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 605532788 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[104] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 623717395 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[105] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 592944315 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[106] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 602549200 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[107] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 666361872 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[108] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 608787296 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[109] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 562948445 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[110] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 613826068 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[111] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 631629117 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[112] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 597112495 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[113] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 623303739 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[114] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 602971492 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[115] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 565055028 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[116] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 548542413 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[117] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 550774879 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[118] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 536835480 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[119] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 546254607 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[120] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 542142691 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[121] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 545402755 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[122] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 543831975 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[123] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 535534796 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[124] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 539519108 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[125] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 546039540 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[126] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 559314072 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[127] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 548731150 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).
[128] Interrupts may have been disabled during this test. The measured
CPU speed averaged 555331360 Hz while the test was running. The
expected CPU speed was 508636783 Hz (510 MHz).

--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

René Frej Nielsen (27-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 27-01-03 22:58

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> > Jamen, hvad med resultatet på selve benchmarken? De der Mhz-målinger kan
> > vi ikke bruge til noget.
>
> Hvad mener du mere specifikt med det?
>
> WEIGHTED SUITE SCORE UNITS
>
> Business Disk WinMark 99 2000 [3,4,41] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> High-End Disk WinMark 99 6270 [3,4,43] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> Business Graphics WinMark 99 40.4 [3,4,126,127,128]
> High-End Graphics WinMark 99 157 [3,4,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]

Det er ovenstående resultater, som du skal sammenligne på de to
maskiner. Ikke noget med målt clockfrekvens.

På min maskine, hvor der dog kørte lidt i baggrunden fik jeg følgende
resultat:

Business Disk WinMark 99 4110 Thousand Bytes/Sec
High-End Disk WinMark 99 12000 Thousand Bytes/Sec
Business Graphics WinMark 99 38.8
High-End Graphics WinMark 99 162

VPC står til 1024x768 i 16 bit, men jeg tror ikke det har indflydelse på
testen.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (28-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 28-01-03 04:51

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> > WEIGHTED SUITE SCORE UNITS

> > Business Disk WinMark 99 2000 [3,4,41] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > High-End Disk WinMark 99 6270 [3,4,43] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > Business Graphics WinMark 99 40.4 [3,4,126,127,128]
> > High-End Graphics WinMark 99 157 [3,4,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]

> Det er ovenstående resultater, som du skal sammenligne på de to
> maskiner. Ikke noget med målt clockfrekvens.

> På min maskine, hvor der dog kørte lidt i baggrunden fik jeg følgende
> resultat:

> Business Disk WinMark 99 4110 Thousand Bytes/Sec
> High-End Disk WinMark 99 12000 Thousand Bytes/Sec
> Business Graphics WinMark 99 38.8
> High-End Graphics WinMark 99 162

> VPC står til 1024x768 i 16 bit, men jeg tror ikke det har indflydelse på
> testen.

Og hvad siger de tal så, sammelignet med en fysisk maskine? Men jeg ser
dog at diskaccessen på min VPC, men en ufragmenteret containerfil,
ligger på cirka halvdelen af din, mens grafikken kører nogenlunde ens.

Og du har endda en 1,25 GHz maskine, /dual/. Men ok, skærmkortet skal jo
også være forsynet med en processor.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

René Frej Nielsen (28-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 28-01-03 06:55

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > WEIGHTED SUITE SCORE UNITS
>
> > > Business Disk WinMark 99 2000 [3,4,41] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > > High-End Disk WinMark 99 6270 [3,4,43] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > > Business Graphics WinMark 99 40.4 [3,4,126,127,128]
> > > High-End Graphics WinMark 99 157 [3,4,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]
>
> > Det er ovenstående resultater, som du skal sammenligne på de to
> > maskiner. Ikke noget med målt clockfrekvens.
>
> > På min maskine, hvor der dog kørte lidt i baggrunden fik jeg følgende
> > resultat:
>
> > Business Disk WinMark 99 4110 Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > High-End Disk WinMark 99 12000 Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > Business Graphics WinMark 99 38.8
> > High-End Graphics WinMark 99 162
>
> > VPC står til 1024x768 i 16 bit, men jeg tror ikke det har indflydelse på
> > testen.
>
> Og hvad siger de tal så, sammelignet med en fysisk maskine? Men jeg ser
> dog at diskaccessen på min VPC, men en ufragmenteret containerfil,
> ligger på cirka halvdelen af din, mens grafikken kører nogenlunde ens.

DIsse tal siger noget om ydelsen, for det er jo testresultaterne, altså
hvor hurtigt maskinen kan gennemføre testen. Prøv at køre den samme test
på din bærbare.

> Og du har endda en 1,25 GHz maskine, /dual/. Men ok, skærmkortet skal jo
> også være forsynet med en processor.

Det er nu en Dual 867 Mhz...

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (28-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 28-01-03 18:51

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Det er nu en Dual 867 Mhz...

Det kunne forklare hvorfor din disk-access er dobbelt så hurtig som min.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~ (28-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~


Dato : 28-01-03 19:24

per@ronne.invalid (Per Rønne) writes:

> > Det er nu en Dual 867 Mhz...
>
> Det kunne forklare hvorfor din disk-access er dobbelt så hurtig som min.

Du mener at når der er to CPU'er til at tage fra, så kan harddisken
arbejde dobbelt så hurtigt?

Eller hva?
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "... plus ... Tubular Bells!"
http://bigfoot.com/~thunderbear

René Frej Nielsen (28-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 28-01-03 19:36

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>
> > Det er nu en Dual 867 Mhz...
>
> Det kunne forklare hvorfor din disk-access er dobbelt så hurtig som min.

Måske ja. Der er dog ikke nogen god forklaring på, hvorfor min halter
lidt efter i grafikken, for det er netop der, at Connectix bruger den
ekstra CPU.

Hvis jeg alligevel skal boote i den nærmeste fremtid, så vil jeg prøve
med en helt "frisk" maskine.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (28-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 28-01-03 20:05

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:
>
> > René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
> >
> > > Det er nu en Dual 867 Mhz...
> >
> > Det kunne forklare hvorfor din disk-access er dobbelt så hurtig som min.
>
> Måske ja. Der er dog ikke nogen god forklaring på, hvorfor min halter
> lidt efter i grafikken, for det er netop der, at Connectix bruger den
> ekstra CPU.

Så vidt jeg har forstået er der på skærmkortet også en processor, som
bruges af VPC og den nye udgave af MacOS X.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

René Frej Nielsen (29-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 29-01-03 01:21

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> > Måske ja. Der er dog ikke nogen god forklaring på, hvorfor min halter
> > lidt efter i grafikken, for det er netop der, at Connectix bruger den
> > ekstra CPU.
>
> Så vidt jeg har forstået er der på skærmkortet også en processor, som
> bruges af VPC og den nye udgave af MacOS X.

Du mener GPU'en, som er grafikkortets processor. Quartz Extreme udnytter
grafikkortet til at accelerere 2D grafikken, men det er vist ikke noget
VPC udnytter specifikt. De kan ikke umiddelbart bruge 2 processorer til
en PC emulering, men de bruger istedet en smule af den anden processor
til at stå skærmopdateringen af VPC. Det skulle give et lille boost, men
ikke noget vildt.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (29-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 29-01-03 04:12

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Du mener GPU'en, som er grafikkortets processor. Quartz Extreme udnytter
> grafikkortet til at accelerere 2D grafikken, men det er vist ikke noget
> VPC udnytter specifikt.

Jeg mener nu ellers at kunne huske at der var en opdatering af 5.0.x der
fik VPC til at udnytte denne GPU.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

René Frej Nielsen (29-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 29-01-03 18:01

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:
>
> > Du mener GPU'en, som er grafikkortets processor. Quartz Extreme udnytter
> > grafikkortet til at accelerere 2D grafikken, men det er vist ikke noget
> > VPC udnytter specifikt.
>
> Jeg mener nu ellers at kunne huske at der var en opdatering af 5.0.x der
> fik VPC til at udnytte denne GPU.

Det husker jeg ikke, men det kan da godt være.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Per Rønne (02-02-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 02-02-03 05:49

René Frej Nielsen <spam02@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> > > > WEIGHTED SUITE SCORE UNITS
> >
> > > > Business Disk WinMark 99 2000 [3,4,41] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > > > High-End Disk WinMark 99 6270 [3,4,43] Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > > > Business Graphics WinMark 99 40.4 [3,4,126,127,128]
> > > > High-End Graphics WinMark 99 157 [3,4,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]
> >
> > > Det er ovenstående resultater, som du skal sammenligne på de to
> > > maskiner. Ikke noget med målt clockfrekvens.
> >
> > > På min maskine, hvor der dog kørte lidt i baggrunden fik jeg følgende
> > > resultat:
> >
> > > Business Disk WinMark 99 4110 Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > > High-End Disk WinMark 99 12000 Thousand Bytes/Sec
> > > Business Graphics WinMark 99 38.8
> > > High-End Graphics WinMark 99 162

OK:
min din Compaq Compaq
VPC VPC Armada Deskpro
G4/867 G4/867 E450
single dual laptop
Business Disk 2000 4110 1486 2280 kiloBytes/Sec
High-End Disk 6270 12000 4440 5250 kiloBytes/Sec
Business Graphics 40.4 38.8 86.1 54.9
High-End Graphics 157 162 249 154

Yderst til højre en maskine, som jeg ikke selv har testet, men hvor
ydelsen ligger i WinBenchs arkiv.

Hvad siger resultatet dig?
--
Per Erik Rønne

René Frej Nielsen (02-02-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : René Frej Nielsen


Dato : 02-02-03 13:22

Per Rønne <per@ronne.invalid> wrote:

> OK:
> min din Compaq Compaq
> VPC VPC Armada Deskpro
> G4/867 G4/867 E450
> single dual laptop
> Business Disk 2000 4110 1486 2280 kiloBytes/Sec
> High-End Disk 6270 12000 4440 5250 kiloBytes/Sec
> Business Graphics 40.4 38.8 86.1 54.9
> High-End Graphics 157 162 249 154
>
> Yderst til højre en maskine, som jeg ikke selv har testet, men hvor
> ydelsen ligger i WinBenchs arkiv.
>
> Hvad siger resultatet dig?

At med diskrelateret aktivitet så er VPC på vores maskiner foran din
bærbare, men grafisk set halter de noget efter. Det kan man godt forstå,
da det er tydelig at optegningen af skærmen ikke er speciel hurtig, når
man bruger VPC.

--
Mvh.
René Frej Nielsen
Now running PowerMac G4 Dual 867 Mhz, 512 MB RAM,
200 GB HD, SuperDrive & Mac OS X Jaguar. Yeah!

Povl H. Pedersen (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Povl H. Pedersen


Dato : 25-01-03 10:25

In article <1fpbtqy.p5nfhlo7pr8aN%per@ronne.invalid>, Per Rønne wrote:
> Jeg har ingen java-erfaring, men så vidt jeg ved kører java-programmer
> væsenligt langsommere end andre programmer. Fortolkes de?

Fordelene ved Java programmer er, at de er skrevet til en Virtuel
maskine som de fortolkes på. Det betyder at man kan smide java
programmer rund på nettet, og lade et javaprogram downloade kode den kan
køre etc. Det er compile once, run everywhere.

..not er det samme, bortset fra at Microsoft ser windows som everywhere.


--
To get blacklisted please mail to listme@listme.dsbl.org
Writing to the above address will blacklist your mailserver.
Hvis du skriver til ovenstående e-mail bliver din mailserver blacklistet.

Per Rønne (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 25-01-03 10:42

Povl H. Pedersen <povlhp@povl-h-pedersens-computer.local> wrote:

> In article <1fpbtqy.p5nfhlo7pr8aN%per@ronne.invalid>, Per Rønne wrote:
> > Jeg har ingen java-erfaring, men så vidt jeg ved kører java-programmer
> > væsenligt langsommere end andre programmer. Fortolkes de?
>
> Fordelene ved Java programmer er, at de er skrevet til en Virtuel
> maskine som de fortolkes på. Det betyder at man kan smide java
> programmer rund på nettet, og lade et javaprogram downloade kode den kan
> køre etc. Det er compile once, run everywhere.

Men det er jo netop også ulempen. Fortolket kode kører selvklart
langsommere end kode der er kompileret til en bestemt maskine, og som
rent faktisk kører på denne maskine.
--
Cand.scient. Per Erik Rønne
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj
Tlf + fax 38 89 00 16, mobil 28 23 09 92

Povl H. Pedersen (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Povl H. Pedersen


Dato : 25-01-03 18:16

In article <1fpc86h.x54kdi15nti1N%per@ronne.invalid>, Per Rønne wrote:
> Povl H. Pedersen <povlhp@povl-h-pedersens-computer.local> wrote:
>
>> In article <1fpbtqy.p5nfhlo7pr8aN%per@ronne.invalid>, Per Rønne wrote:
>> > Jeg har ingen java-erfaring, men så vidt jeg ved kører java-programmer
>> > væsenligt langsommere end andre programmer. Fortolkes de?
>>
>> Fordelene ved Java programmer er, at de er skrevet til en Virtuel
>> maskine som de fortolkes på. Det betyder at man kan smide java
>> programmer rund på nettet, og lade et javaprogram downloade kode den kan
>> køre etc. Det er compile once, run everywhere.
>
> Men det er jo netop også ulempen. Fortolket kode kører selvklart
> langsommere end kode der er kompileret til en bestemt maskine, og som
> rent faktisk kører på denne maskine.

Enig. Men når hardware nu fordobles i hastighed hver 18 måned, så
betyder det mindre. Derudover, så kører det rimeligt effektivt.

Og det er da smart at klienter kan forbinde sig til serveren, og
få erstattet komponenter i runtime, og at man ikke skal tænke på
platform.

Men man kunne også lave et godt C eller C++ cross-platform lib,
og dermed gøre dette lige så godt men hurtigere. Du vil dog stadig
skulle distribuere en fil pr. target platform.

Derudover findes der forresten også en GCC Java compiler.

--
To get blacklisted please mail to listme@listme.dsbl.org
Writing to the above address will blacklist your mailserver.
Hvis du skriver til ovenstående e-mail bliver din mailserver blacklistet.

Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~ (25-01-2003)
Kommentar
Fra : Thorbjoern Ravn Ande~


Dato : 25-01-03 10:58

per@ronne.invalid (Per Rønne) writes:

> Jeg har ingen java-erfaring, men så vidt jeg ved kører java-programmer
> væsenligt langsommere end andre programmer. Fortolkes de?

Java er mange ting på en gang. Udover det C-lignende sprog med
OO-overbygning, er der også et afviklingsmiljø, som i sin kerne har en
Java Virtuel Maskine som forstår Java Byte Code (Java-"maskinkode").
Menneskelæselige programmer skal oversættes til Java Byte Code inden
de kan afvikles.

På en PC/Mac/anden computer implementeres de virtuelle javamaskiner
sædvanligvis i software (og fortolkes derfor - moderne JVM'er
indeholder en hel del adaptiv compilering som har sat farten gevaldigt
op), men på fx en Java-mobiltelefon er Java en del af hardwaren (altså
selve maskinen, ikke operativsystemet).

De moderne JVM'er har brugt MEGET krudt på at optimere afviklingen, og
Java-programmer kører derfor hurtigt, men på grund af den måde det er
designet på kræver det en del RAM for at køre tilfredsstillende.

På Mac er HotSpot (JVM afvikleren) ikke så tunet som på en PC, og Mac
er derfor en langsom platform til java-ting.

--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "... plus ... Tubular Bells!"
http://bigfoot.com/~thunderbear

Søg
Reklame
Statistik
Spørgsmål : 177517
Tips : 31968
Nyheder : 719565
Indlæg : 6408636
Brugere : 218887

Månedens bedste
Årets bedste
Sidste års bedste