Louis,
> > Under what OS. Seems ok under Win XP.
>
> Win98 *ducks for cover*
Meaning you do or don't have the problem ~:0 I don't see it on Win98,
but, then I might be doing something slightly different.
> As for hardware, I have a laptop that's got a P3-500MHz cpu with 256MB
RAM.
> I mention this as a "heads-up" -- you might get comments from the general
> public because of the slower window-closing I observed earlier, assuming
> that most people don't have the kickass machines that you have. Perhaps
> other beta testers might chime in with what their current primary
> development platforms are (hardware and OS), just for a reality check of
> sorts.
I'm definitely noticing the slower close. I don't really care if it's just
the IDE; but, if it crosses over into dialog boxes in end user apps, it's a
step in the wrong direction.
My machine at home is a P2-400 with 320MB of RAM, up from 64MB when I bought
it; it has also "grown" another disk drive since 8MB wasn't cutting it. I
deliberately bought a "small" drive when the machine was new, because drive
failures were quite common at that time and I didn't trust the 12GB drives.
I now have the 8 and 20.
I also have a hand-me-down K6-2-650, but, it quite honestly isn't as fast as
my P2-400 (Intel chip, Asus board).
I have a very nice but old Toshiba laptop that has 86MB of RAM, is a P166(I
think???) and has a **NICE** active matrix 1024x768 display. The latter is
the main reasin I use it in preference to the faster Dell Inspiron (233 MHz
or so). I'm not traveling much these days, so I can't bring myself to spend
my own money on a portable (I'll wait until I really need one and and then
buy); "hand me downs" from my colleagues are more than sufficient for doing
things that really can only be done when crouching in very uncomfortable
positions behind an anesthesia machine.
Amazingly enough, my primary machine at work is a 233MHz machine runing
Win95! Basically, a machine quit at a bad time, and that box was collecting
dust. I put every memory module I could find in it and got back to work.
There is also a P3 (400 or so??) in my office running NT4. It did a tour of
duty in on of our ORs and then helped track down various problems. As I'm
almost free of Pen Windows, I might be able to start using it. Last I
tried, I couldn't stip on it though, because the dangling references to Pen
Windows trip it up.
My new server is a 1.8GHz P4 with 256MB(???) and Win2k. It replaces a
P2-233 96MB, Win98 that was simply running out of disk space; it was fine on
memory and speed. Because of that, I have lots of power to burn, and can
probably do some things on the server :)
I have access to a very similar machine, but, don't want to wear out the
welcome. It also happens that its user indirectly is helping me, so keeping
her from the machine isn't smart.
As I was saying before, things that manipulate my code (refactoring etc) are
nice to do on faster boxes. My machine at home is great. I'm a firm
believer that it's a bad idea to do all development/testing on high end
machines though, because end users are always stuck with older boxes that
are running more stuff than they can handle. Machines bought in lots tend
not to have the extra RAM, etc. because of the multiplier effect in the
bottom line. On the clinician entry side, I deal with pen tablets that lag
because of market issues more than tight purse strings.
I hestitate to mention it, but, it was Win9x "crashing" that lead us to find
that creating a new Font was creating/querying/finalizing a canvas to get
the screen resolution. Even on a fast machine, that was a great deal of
wasted clock cycles.
Have a good one,
Bill
--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]
Locked
