[chandler-users] Performance: comparing Intel and PowerPC versions of Chandler desktop 1.0.3 RC1 on Mac OS X 10.5.6

Graham Perrin G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk
Wed Feb 18 11:34:03 PST 2009

Spun off from <http://n2.nabble.com/-tp2341676p2348714.html>

Two computers: 

A) Mac Mini, circa 1995, 1 GB RAM, 1.42 GHz G4 PowerPC 7447A. 
Benchmark represented by MacTracker: 783.

B) MacBook Pro, 1996, 2 GB RAM, 2.16 GHz Intel Core Duo T2600 (Yonah). 
Benchmark represented by MacTracker: 2635.

Each computer runs Chandler desktop 1.0.3 RC1 on Mac OS X 10.5.6.
Repositories should be close to identical; both were imported a few hours
ago from a backup.chex comprising over 48,000 records.

We might expect Chandler to perform better on the newer, better specified
Intel MacBook Pro. 

In fact: Chandler is at least TEN TIMES AS FAST on the older low spec
PowerPC Mac Mini!

Measurements based on launch and quit times. 

Measurements aside, Chandler *feels* so much better on the PowerPC. 

I'd like to know why my Intel MacBook Pro makes Chandler so horrendously
slow. The issue might be software related, but I look first at the disk:

Mount Point :	/
Capacity :	92.8 GB (99,686,268,928 Bytes)
Format :	Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
Available :	3.6 GB (3,894,751,232 Bytes)
Owners Enabled :	Yes	
Used :	89.2 GB (95,791,517,696 Bytes)
Number of Folders :	366,114
Number of Files :	2,192,277

Not a great deal of free space, true, but all free space was recently made
contiguous (using iDefrag). 

Any ideas?

Does Berkeley DB or Python require more than my MacBook Pro can offer?


References, mostly relating to the Intel:


Relating to the PowerPC:






View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Performance%3A-comparing-Intel-and-PowerPC-versions-of-Chandler-desktop-1.0.3-RC1-on-Mac-OS-X-10.5.6-tp2348910p2348910.html
Sent from the Chandler users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the chandler-users mailing list