<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [chuck-users] benchmarking chuck</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> Graham Percival;<BR>
<BR>
> I am utterly shocked that OSX's power saving options are that<BR>
inefficient. Surely if the OS detects that there's high CPU use, it<BR>
should kick in to "highest" and leave it there for a while, right? 62<BR>
-> 48 is a pretty significant gap in performance.<BR>
<BR>
Windows does that as well. It's realy anoying. You'd think it could make the call depending on wether net power was present but somehow it doesn't. So; you set it to full performance and your laptop becomes nearly worthless for typing on the train. Oh, well, there's always pen and paper...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Ge;<BR>
>> (apologies again for the awful performance)<BR>
<BR>
Graham;<BR>
> No need; sorry if my initial email seemed a bit harsh. I'm very<BR>
adverse to criticizing open-source projects -- (snip)<BR>
<BR>
To me at the moment the most interesting thing about ChucK isn't it's performance or even the sound that comes out. To me the bigest selling point is that ChucK's unusual logic forces you to think differently about the link between time and music. In that field it added a lot to my little studio even if I think I have yet to record a single audio file from it...<BR>
<BR>
Yours,<BR>
Kas.<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>