From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/18780 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Patrick Gundlach" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Date: 9 Mar 2005 09:09:12 +0100 Organization: chaos Message-ID: References: <20050304164812.20495@mail.comp.lancs.ac.uk> <413b3ca978e6f281d4843dad4a11bc58@indiana.edu> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1110357898 23650 80.91.229.2 (9 Mar 2005 08:44:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Wed Mar 09 09:44:57 2005 Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D8woH-0003Bq-0M for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:44:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDB2127C3; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:45:05 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14790-04; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:45:05 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A3E127F7; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:08:46 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD569127F7 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:08:44 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14544-01 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:08:44 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lilly.ping.de (lilly.ping.de [83.97.42.2]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id DF57F127F6 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:08:43 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: (qmail 8771 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2005 08:08:43 -0000 Original-Received: (ofmipd 193.251.46.164); 9 Mar 2005 08:08:21 -0000 Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Lieblings-Musik: the_capricorns In-Reply-To: <413b3ca978e6f281d4843dad4a11bc58@indiana.edu> (Matthias Weber's message of "Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:50 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-MailScanner-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-MailScanner-To: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:18780 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:18780 Hello Matthias, > after the recent discussion of ConTeXt processing (some) files 4 times > as often under OS X > than elsewhere, I decided to upgrade to the most recent beta and run a > speed comparison > on notes I am writing. To my dismay, here are the results: > ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 > total run time : 416 seconds Our discussion was finished 2005.03.03 so you might have the old (buggy) version. Do you get the same amount of tex runs on both systems? Patrick -- ConTeXt wiki: http://contextgarden.net