🚀 go-pugleaf

More random ruminations on speed:

In 1.0, Edit used buffered windows.  This meant that text was drawn into the  
buffer, and only then was the buffer flushed.
In 2.0, Edit used retained windows, so the blit to scroll the text was done  
on-screen, and then you would see the text redraw on the screen.  We saved one  
full-window blit (the one to flush the buffer); since half as many bits were  
being blitted around, scrolling performance improved.  However, to my eye, the  
_quality_ of scrolling was worse;  I don't like to see the text flicker and  
redraw.  (It reminds me of lesser computers  8^)

For 3.0, Edit is using a buffered window again.  Sheer scolling speed is down,  
but to my eye it's much easier to read scrolling text.  I think visible vs.  
buffered redraws is something of a religious issue; I don't really expect to  
convince anybody of rightness one way or the other.  Still, to check out the  
difference for yourself, use Interface Builider to create a window with a big  
RTF text object in it, and try running it in test mode and then switching the  
window between buffered and retained.  The difference in speed is less apparent  
than the difference in display quality.

Rumination #2: someone commented that he didn't notice a slowdown between 1.0  
and 2.0.  I guess I can't argue with perceptions except to comment that most  
people upgraded to an 040 when they got 2.0;  it was definitely bigger and  
slower than 1.0.  The truth about virtual memory systems is that they will  
always slow down when they get bigger.  I think 3.0 is a win in the long term  
because it enables developers to do better things.  (I don't claim to be  
unbiased...)  Get a few more megs of ram and enjoy!

-sam

--
Opinions expressed herein are not those of my employer.  They're not even
mine.  They're probably wrong besides.  How did they get in here, anyway?