From xemacs-m  Wed Mar 26 09:19:54 1997
Received: from newman (root@newman.aventail.com [38.225.141.10])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA01438
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:19:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: from kramer.in.aventail.com.aventail.com (wmperry@kramer [192.168.1.12]) by newman (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA18466; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:17:13 -0800
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:17:13 -0800
Message-Id: <199703261517.HAA18466@newman>
From: "William M. Perry" <wmperry@aventail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Cc: wmperry@aventail.com, Adrian Aichner <aichner@ecf.teradyne.com>,
        xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: NEWS submission
In-Reply-To: <kigafnq66fz.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <199703252230.RAA19898@blight.IntraNet.com>
	<m2d8snfrtr.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199703252349.PAA17211@newman>
	<kig2093bjx2.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
	<rxspvwmaovv.fsf@midnight.ecf.teradyne.com>
	<199703261447.GAA18348@newman>
	<kigafnq66fz.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid (beta104)
Errors-to: wmperry@aventail.com
Reply-to: wmperry@aventail.com
X-Face: O~Rn;(l][/-o1sALg4A@xpE:9-"'IR[%;,,!m7</SYF`{vYQ(&RI1&EiH[FvT;J}@f!4kfz
 x_!Y#=y{Uuj9GvUi=cPuajQ(Z42R[wE@{G,sn$qGr5g/wnb*"*ktI+,CD}1Z'wxrM2ag-r0p5I6\nA
 [WJopW_J.WY;

Hrvoje Niksic writes:
>"William M. Perry" <wmperry@aventail.com> writes:
>
>>   This is a PPRO/200 w/32M of memory, a machine people can pretty easily
>> afford ($3k).
>
>You are joking, of course.  Or aren't you?  If average people can afford
>$3k machines without problems in the US, I begin to see why XEmacs has
>become as slow as it is.

  Depends on what you define as average anymore I guess. :)  I make a very
average income, and I could buy one if I felt the need.  I'll wait until
all my aventail stock is worth something more than likely though.  My
father just dropped ~3k on a new machine, a friend of mine just bought a
dual PPRO for ~2.5k.

  I'm becoming increasingly depressed with the lack of real engineering
effort in most products to make them scream on this new hardware.  Running
MS-word on a PPRO/200 under NT is seriously about as fast as appleworks was
on my old apple //c.  And most places don't want you to get creative
either.  I was talking to a friend of mine at microsoft and was lamenting
this point, and I described how GNUS did adaptive scoring, and his response
was 'now _thats_ what we should be implementing!'.  Thankfully, he doesn't
work on outlook or msnews. :)

>BTW, you didn't say what your results were; how much to parse the
>document, and how much to render (display) it.  How much of that time
>is the fault of W3, and how much is the slowness of XEmacs?

  39 seconds was from:

(let ((x (current-time)))
  (w3-fetch "http://fly.cc.fer.hr/HTML3/WD-css1.html")
  (- (nth 1 (current-time)) (nth 1 x)))

eval'd.  This was with the file in my cache, with w3 already loaded
though.  But that includes both parsing annd drawing time.  I'm behind an
ISDN link right now, so download time originally was a bit higher.  43
seconds to load emacs-w3 seems a bit excessive - are you going over NFS?

-Bill P.

