<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On optimizing software for speed..</title>
	<link>http://www.tigert.com/archives/2006/01/27/on-optimizing-software-for-speed/</link>
	<description>um, what do I write here?</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tuomas Kuosmanen</title>
		<link>http://www.tigert.com/archives/2006/01/27/on-optimizing-software-for-speed/#comment-4338</link>
		<dc:creator>Tuomas Kuosmanen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tigert.com/archives/2006/01/27/on-optimizing-software-for-speed/#comment-4338</guid>
		<description>Alan: Yes. But should a gigabyte be enough for email, web and gimp? I used to do that with 16 MB of ram on my P100 - though there was no Evolution back then, but we had Gimp and Mozilla. 

Gimp had the same data even back then. It was not a problem. I somehow think that with Gtk2 stuff got a lot slower, with antialiasing, freetype etc - we have got a lot of good stuff. But we have gained a lot of memory footprint as well.

Stuff has just crept larger quietly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan: Yes. But should a gigabyte be enough for email, web and gimp? I used to do that with 16 MB of ram on my P100 - though there was no Evolution back then, but we had Gimp and Mozilla. </p>
<p>Gimp had the same data even back then. It was not a problem. I somehow think that with Gtk2 stuff got a lot slower, with antialiasing, freetype etc - we have got a lot of good stuff. But we have gained a lot of memory footprint as well.</p>
<p>Stuff has just crept larger quietly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Horkan</title>
		<link>http://www.tigert.com/archives/2006/01/27/on-optimizing-software-for-speed/#comment-4336</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Horkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tigert.com/archives/2006/01/27/on-optimizing-software-for-speed/#comment-4336</guid>
		<description>*Just* Evolution, the Gimp and Firefox!

Those are some of the larger more resource hungry programs available.  
Throw in a few more like OpenOffice and you might just be able to grind you machine to an incredibly slow speed so that it is unusable.  I've older hardware so perhaps I'm more sensative but Gnome is definately far far slower than Windows 2000.   

You might also try running gimp --no-data
Gimp is simply not designed to be slim or fast by default, even if you were a proffessional user and kept it open all day it would be difficult to make use of it all the features even if you were trying, so I've never though it was the best strategy and I wish they'd just load things on demand as and when they are needed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*Just* Evolution, the Gimp and Firefox!</p>
<p>Those are some of the larger more resource hungry programs available.<br />
Throw in a few more like OpenOffice and you might just be able to grind you machine to an incredibly slow speed so that it is unusable.  I&#8217;ve older hardware so perhaps I&#8217;m more sensative but Gnome is definately far far slower than Windows 2000.   </p>
<p>You might also try running gimp &#8211;no-data<br />
Gimp is simply not designed to be slim or fast by default, even if you were a proffessional user and kept it open all day it would be difficult to make use of it all the features even if you were trying, so I&#8217;ve never though it was the best strategy and I wish they&#8217;d just load things on demand as and when they are needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Messe</title>
		<link>http://www.tigert.com/archives/2006/01/27/on-optimizing-software-for-speed/#comment-4334</link>
		<dc:creator>Messe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:26:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tigert.com/archives/2006/01/27/on-optimizing-software-for-speed/#comment-4334</guid>
		<description>Hi.

You propably knew this already but you could check your /proc/sys/vm value. Bigger the value is, more actively Linux swaps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi.</p>
<p>You propably knew this already but you could check your /proc/sys/vm value. Bigger the value is, more actively Linux swaps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
