Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!latcs1!wcc!tom
From: tom@wcc.oz (Tom Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Lies, Damn Lies...
Message-ID: <1210@wcc.oz>
Date: 10 Dec 90 08:20:42 GMT
Organization: Webster Computer, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 72

Now that I have your attention, the full reference is:

	Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
		And Benchmarks.		:-)

Sorry for the length of this - I hope it clears a few things up.

> Tom Benedict@polari.UUCP writes:
>> The upgrade situation is a real thorn for system administrators
>> who would like to stick with HC1.2x for performance reasons yet
>> must run HC2 on some machines.
>
> "Hmm, abysmal performance or worse-than-abysmal performance,
> hmm...I'll pick abysmal performance..." 

So HC2 is slower then HC1? I used to think so too, but it ain't that
simple. On the weekend I noticed that HC2.0 was a lot slower than
HC1.2.5, so I started measuring things.

MonoFinder on a IIcx and System 6.0.5:

  Test	Description				1.2.5	2.0	1.2.5/2.0
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  1	repeat 50000 - null loop (ticks)	759	207	3.66
  2	repeat 500  send message (ticks)	256	85	3.01
  3	Write into scrolling field (ticks)	704	690	1.02
  4	Collect data from cards to field (sec)	22.14	19.23	1.15

HC2 is lots faster. The time taken in the third test was probably 90%
toolbox calls (nothing HC can do about this). Lots of toolbox calls in
4 as well. Note (4) is a "real world" test - part of a stack I wrote.

MonoFinder on a IIcx and System 6.0.5 with ** 6 DA's on screen:

  Test	Description				1.2.5	2.0	1.2.5/2.0
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  1	repeat 50000 - null loop (ticks)	754	209	3.61
  2	repeat 500  send message (ticks)	280	127	2.20
  3	Write into scrolling field (ticks)	711	1043	0.68
  4	(didn't do this test)

With DA's competing for the processor, HC1 lost 0%, 9% and 1%. HC2
lost 1%, 34% and _34%_!! Looking at this I can also tell WHEN HC2 gives
time away - not while looping in a single script, but when passing
messages. All you speed-scripters take note - ultra-bad style 
(monolithic code - ugh!) leads to far more speed (again).

Torture time. MultiFinder, Word, NCSA Telnet, HC1 AND HC2 and 5 DA's:

  Test	Description				1.2.5	2.0	1.2.5/2.0
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  1	repeat 50000 - null loop (ticks)	785	222	3.58
  2	repeat 500  send message (ticks)	269	182	1.47
  3	Write into scrolling field (ticks)	726	1364	0.53
  4	Collect data from cards to field (sec)	23.17	31.96	0.72

Who'd be so bad as to load a machine like this? We all do, don't we?

Simply stated, HC 2 is heaps faster on simple benchmarks, but slower
in "real life". This is because HC2 obeys Apple's specifications for a
"well behaved" application. To get it fast you have to break all the
rules, or get rid of the competition.

If you want HC2 running fast on your Mac - get rid of all that clutter
on your desktop that's wasting cycles - kill the DA's and applications
you're not running. On certain operations you'll double the speed, and
exceed what HC1.2 ran at.

========================
Tom Evans  tom@wcc.oz.au ** ADD ".au" MANUALLY (don't trust "reply") **
Webster Computer Corp P/L, 1270 Ferntree Gully Rd Scoresby, Melbourne 3179
Victoria, Australia 61-3-764-1100  FAX ...764-1179