Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:39:33 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: updating a distribution to pgccc ? Message-ID: <20000919163933.A32517@tardis.ed.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Brown , pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from htl10@cus.cam.ac.uk on Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 02:45:23PM +0100 X-Cookie: Your fault -- core dumped X-WWW-Homepage: http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 02:45:23PM +0100, Dr H. T. Leung wrote: > In fact for a desktop home user system, if you are running Gnome/KDE, you > probably would "percieve" a performance gain just by adding more memory Indeed. One of the main reasons Debian doesn't produce a Pentium optimized version is that most of the time the gains from processor optimization are so small that they're just not worth it. Most programs just aren't CPU intensive, spending far more time doing things like waiting for I/O of various kinds. It tends to be that only one or two applications on a system would benefit from this sort of thing, and even then you're probably going to get a lot better results by tuning the program to the CPU you have rather than just doing Pentium optimization and hoping. Once you get into doing things like that it works out better to ship something that's compatible and let people decide for themselves exactly what optimization they need in the performance critical cases. -- Mark Brown mailto:broonie AT tardis DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/