Home » Eclipse Projects » Eclipse Platform » Eclipse on Mac
| Eclipse on Mac [message #120383] |
Tue, 02 September 2003 08:59  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: simon+eclipse.tardell.se
Hi all!
I recently bought a G4 Mac second hand (for fun mostly) and tried using
Eclipse on it. I don't quite know what a 400 MHz G4 "is supposed" to
correspond to, but mostly the machine behaves similar to my 850 MHz P4
laptop. Except for Eclipse, of course. It is much much slower than anything
else on the machine (relatively speaking), bordering on the unusable. Now, I
looked at the bugs.eclipse.org, and the performance issues on Mac OS X seems
to have been worse before, but are they considered to be resolved now?
Anyone else using Eclipse on OS X? What kind of CPU do you need to pull it
around?
Simon
Simon Tardell, simon@tardell.se
|
|
| | |
| Re: Eclipse on Mac [message #120683 is a reply to message #120383] |
Tue, 02 September 2003 17:37  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Andre_Weinand.oti.com
On 2.9.2003 14:59 Uhr, in article bj246u$n8s$1@eclipse.org, "Simon Tardell"
<simon+eclipse@tardell.se> wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I recently bought a G4 Mac second hand (for fun mostly) and tried using
> Eclipse on it. I don't quite know what a 400 MHz G4 "is supposed" to
> correspond to, but mostly the machine behaves similar to my 850 MHz P4
> laptop. Except for Eclipse, of course. It is much much slower than anything
> else on the machine (relatively speaking), bordering on the unusable. Now, I
> looked at the bugs.eclipse.org, and the performance issues on Mac OS X seems
> to have been worse before, but are they considered to be resolved now?
> Anyone else using Eclipse on OS X? What kind of CPU do you need to pull it
> around?
>
> Simon
>
> Simon Tardell, simon@tardell.se
>
>
I'm using a 800MHz Ti PB with 1GB of RAM.
It's not a speed demon, but I do all Eclipse development on it.
I'd consider a 400 MHz G4 as too slow.
--andre
|
|
|
| Re: Eclipse on Mac [message #120727 is a reply to message #120409] |
Tue, 02 September 2003 20:43 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
In article <bj24k1$nqo$1@eclipse.org>,
"Simon Tardell" <simon+eclipse@tardell.se> wrote:
> "Randy Faust" <faust@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:bj24h3$nni$1@eclipse.org...
> > What build are you using?
>
> 3.0M3
This version has far better performance than previous versions.
If you find it too slow to use, I strongly reccomend crafting bug
reports with one, single, specific performance complaint per bug report.
(IE, rather than complaining that the UI is unresponsive, describe the
source and the exact gesture/circumstance that produces it.)
I use a Ti/667, and M3 with the standard set of activated features and
no plugins is generally usable, save for the automatic method/constant
popup on large files. The basic jogl GL class takes 1-3 seconds to
popup the information, likely because it has a lot of methods, and is
thus a bit unpleasant. It is very likely that I would get acceptable
performance if I disabled these features, but they are a core part of my
workflow.
This is far, far better than M2, as these delays were for 5-15 seconds
on the same machine. That level of performance was unusably slow, and
thus I used other tools. I am very happy with the progress being made,
but I would like another performance boost if they can do it - one more
of similar, impressive, magnitude would make the product perform
acceptably for everything I have tried to do.
(I will be filing this as a bug, with example code, fairly soon.)
I encourage all OS X users to file such specific bugs, as it makes it
clear to the team what needs focus. There is a lot to do and test, and
minor differences in workflow might make a big difference in perceived
speed. For me, the speed improvements in the outline view were not
important, but for one of my co-workers, they were the best single
feature in the last milestone.
Scott
|
|
|
| Re: Eclipse on Mac [message #121718 is a reply to message #120727] |
Wed, 03 September 2003 02:13 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Believe it or not, I am using a Mac 333Mhz G3 with 128MB RAM and it runs
alright on OSX 10.2. I mean, it is sluggish, but for such a much slower
machine than what you guys are quoting with little memory, I am surprised to
hear a G4 400 to 800Mhz is having such a hard time with it. I haven't tried
3.0 yet, but I use the standard set of plugin on 2.1.
"Scott Ellsworth" <scott@alodar.com> wrote in message
news:scott-F08A49.17433502092003@eclipse.org...
> In article <bj24k1$nqo$1@eclipse.org>,
> "Simon Tardell" <simon+eclipse@tardell.se> wrote:
>
> > "Randy Faust" <faust@acm.org> wrote in message
> > news:bj24h3$nni$1@eclipse.org...
> > > What build are you using?
> >
> > 3.0M3
>
> This version has far better performance than previous versions.
>
> If you find it too slow to use, I strongly reccomend crafting bug
> reports with one, single, specific performance complaint per bug report.
> (IE, rather than complaining that the UI is unresponsive, describe the
> source and the exact gesture/circumstance that produces it.)
>
> I use a Ti/667, and M3 with the standard set of activated features and
> no plugins is generally usable, save for the automatic method/constant
> popup on large files. The basic jogl GL class takes 1-3 seconds to
> popup the information, likely because it has a lot of methods, and is
> thus a bit unpleasant. It is very likely that I would get acceptable
> performance if I disabled these features, but they are a core part of my
> workflow.
>
> This is far, far better than M2, as these delays were for 5-15 seconds
> on the same machine. That level of performance was unusably slow, and
> thus I used other tools. I am very happy with the progress being made,
> but I would like another performance boost if they can do it - one more
> of similar, impressive, magnitude would make the product perform
> acceptably for everything I have tried to do.
>
> (I will be filing this as a bug, with example code, fairly soon.)
>
> I encourage all OS X users to file such specific bugs, as it makes it
> clear to the team what needs focus. There is a lot to do and test, and
> minor differences in workflow might make a big difference in perceived
> speed. For me, the speed improvements in the outline view were not
> important, but for one of my co-workers, they were the best single
> feature in the last milestone.
>
> Scott
|
|
|
| Re: Eclipse on Mac [message #122365 is a reply to message #121718] |
Wed, 03 September 2003 16:25 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: phil.shoemaker.palmsource.com
I've been using Eclipse 2.1 on a TiBook G4 500, with 384MB RAM, and I'm
happy with the performance. Granted, it isn't like running it on a 2.5g
machine, but what is?
"Kevin" <supreme_java_guru_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bj40ho$jta$1@eclipse.org...
> Believe it or not, I am using a Mac 333Mhz G3 with 128MB RAM and it runs
> alright on OSX 10.2. I mean, it is sluggish, but for such a much slower
> machine than what you guys are quoting with little memory, I am surprised
to
> hear a G4 400 to 800Mhz is having such a hard time with it. I haven't
tried
> 3.0 yet, but I use the standard set of plugin on 2.1.
>
>
> "Scott Ellsworth" <scott@alodar.com> wrote in message
> news:scott-F08A49.17433502092003@eclipse.org...
> > In article <bj24k1$nqo$1@eclipse.org>,
> > "Simon Tardell" <simon+eclipse@tardell.se> wrote:
> >
> > > "Randy Faust" <faust@acm.org> wrote in message
> > > news:bj24h3$nni$1@eclipse.org...
> > > > What build are you using?
> > >
> > > 3.0M3
> >
> > This version has far better performance than previous versions.
> >
> > If you find it too slow to use, I strongly reccomend crafting bug
> > reports with one, single, specific performance complaint per bug report.
> > (IE, rather than complaining that the UI is unresponsive, describe the
> > source and the exact gesture/circumstance that produces it.)
> >
> > I use a Ti/667, and M3 with the standard set of activated features and
> > no plugins is generally usable, save for the automatic method/constant
> > popup on large files. The basic jogl GL class takes 1-3 seconds to
> > popup the information, likely because it has a lot of methods, and is
> > thus a bit unpleasant. It is very likely that I would get acceptable
> > performance if I disabled these features, but they are a core part of my
> > workflow.
> >
> > This is far, far better than M2, as these delays were for 5-15 seconds
> > on the same machine. That level of performance was unusably slow, and
> > thus I used other tools. I am very happy with the progress being made,
> > but I would like another performance boost if they can do it - one more
> > of similar, impressive, magnitude would make the product perform
> > acceptably for everything I have tried to do.
> >
> > (I will be filing this as a bug, with example code, fairly soon.)
> >
> > I encourage all OS X users to file such specific bugs, as it makes it
> > clear to the team what needs focus. There is a lot to do and test, and
> > minor differences in workflow might make a big difference in perceived
> > speed. For me, the speed improvements in the outline view were not
> > important, but for one of my co-workers, they were the best single
> > feature in the last milestone.
> >
> > Scott
>
>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jun 08 11:55:33 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03831 seconds |
Home