At 03:42 PM 10/8/2010, you wrote:
> Any idea of the loss of performance given that virtually all PCs > these days are actually 64 bit machines? My dual-core 3.2GHz machine supports 64-bit, but I installed a 32-bit OS for compatibility. So, 64-bit math is a performance hit for me. We can have the default "unit" be whatever the native "long" size is, 32-bit on 32-bit, 64-bit on 64-bit, so you always get the biggest "fastest" size. But we can still detect when your fastest size isn't big enough for some odd HUGE layout file.
I am asking how much of a performance hit. Has anyone actually done anything to calibrate this? Unless we have some idea of how much the performance hit would be, there is not much point in discussing it. A 1% slowdown is not worth talking about. A 1000% slowdown would be an issue. Numbers in between would be worth discussing.
Performance issues fall into three categories in terms of impacting the user. A delay up to 0.3 seconds is not really noticeable as a delay to the user. From there up to 3 seconds is noticeable, but not enough to lose focus on your task. About 3 seconds to 30 seconds delay you lose focus on your task which significantly impacts your productivity and is very irritating. Beyond about 30 seconds and the user is inclined to leave the work station. Do you think the 64/32 bit performance issue would push any of the current operational delays across any of these thresholds?
> As someone pointed out, couldn't that be a build option? If someone > needs to design boards larger than 2 meters, would it be a hard thing > to do to build a 64 bit version? Of course it can.
Then why should we worry about the remote possibility that a user will want a PCB larger than 2 meters? Their problem could be solved by creating a 64 bit version. I just saw your later post that clearly states your position so I guess I have my answer.
Rick
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user