forum.vdsworld.com

FreezingFire · **Admin Team** Joined: 23 Jun 2002 Posts: 3508

I found something interesting:

Try the following script by running it in the IDE.

Skit3000 · Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:44 pm Post subject:

Simple explanation: VDS is a interpretered language, so running trough the IDE can be a lot faster then compiling stuff, and vice versa...

BTW. First time through the IDE took 20 seconds, second time 11 seconds, and the third time 15 seconds. The only thing I had running was VDS & this reply window...

MarkTrubo · Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:16 pm Post subject:

I ran it 4X in the IDE. Sony Vaio PCV-RX860, XP Home, 2.4Ghz P4, 512MB Ram:

1) 9 seconds
2) 9 seconds
3) 9 seconds
4) 9 seconds

Now 4X Compiled:
1) 7 seconds
2) 7 seconds
3) 7 seconds
4) 7 seconds

Other programs running besides this reply = ZoneAlarm, Norton System Doctor, LaunchPad, Norton Anti-Virus.

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1562

Ran it 3 times. Compaq Presario 2700T, 1.06Ghz P3 mobile, XP Home SP1, 320 MB Ram:

16 sec on all 3 attempts in IDE
14 sec on all 3 attempts compiled.

MarkTrubo · Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:46 pm Post subject:

Wow, the XP 2.4Ghz P4 with 512MB Ram really is quite a bit faster! Could not say for sure as it just replaced my 450Mhz Win98 box with 64mb of ram -- it finally died -- thank goodness!!!

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1562

Yup, your system is almost twice as fast as mine and the results of that test show it Smile

Garrett · Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 8:43 pm Post subject:

750 Mhz, 384 Meg Mem, on a 1 week old install of WinME

VDS 4x IDE:
68
69
30
29
69

VDS 4x Compiled:
69
28
68
29
68

VDS 3x IDE:
25
25
65
65
25

VDS 3x Compiled:
29
70
29
70
30

VDS 2x IDE:
27
66
27
27
66

VDS 2x Compiled Integrated:
32
32
72
32
32

VDS 2x Compiled Un-Integrated:
69
29
29
69
29

Skit3000 · Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:46 pm Post subject:

Garrett, had nothing else to do? Wink

MarkTrubo · Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 9:15 pm Post subject:

Man, and I thought I was being over the top with 8 tries.
Wink

Garrett · Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 9:23 pm Post subject:

I had only intended to just try VDS 4x, but then got a wee bit curious
about VDS 3x, and then for fun tried VDS 2x Rolling Eyes

I was going to add results from "Cough!! Cough!", but that doesn't exist,
so I can't post results that don't exist. Twisted Evil

-Garrett

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1562

ehheeheh is it that time of the season for coughing again? Smile

FreezingFire · **Admin Team** Joined: 23 Jun 2002 Posts: 3508

I guess there's no cure for the coughs until S.A.D.E. releases the medicine. Wink

MarkTrubo · Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:18 pm Post subject:

Since 4 is slower than 3, that which does not exist -- cough cough -- should be the worst yet!

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1562

The variations in Garrett's results are just too far off. They differ from 70 to 29 seconds and that should not happen unless there are other processes running on his computer which intermediately takes more cpu power thus making the time to interpret/process longer (70 seconds). If possible can you try to re-run the code again Garrett but this time shutting everything down but barebones windows components?

Garrett · Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2003 5:44 am Post subject:

I had as much as I could shut down... Except! I do believe I still had
ICS running and one of the kids was probably crusing the net while I
was testing. I was kind of wondering about the varied results also when
compared to others here.

-Garrett