F@h Terminal or Graphic?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Vector, Aug 24, 2002.

  1. Vector macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #1
    I have been used noth the graphical and terminal versions of F@h for about 8 months. I cannot tell that using the command line client processes work units any quicker than the graphical client. I use the graphical client and keep it hidden, and according to the terminal the graphical client doesnt use any percentage of the cpu as long as it isnt in the forground displaying the protein. It says that the core and not the application is using 96% of the cpu cycles when i am not doing anything in other apps. So, is there any proof that the terminal client can process work units any faster? So far from using both versions i cannot tell any meaningful difference.
     
  2. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #2
    From my of programming experience, I've always found text-based programmes to be lighter in CPU usage than GUI-based programmes. Apple has made GUI-based programmes less hungry in Mac OS X Carbon by allowing the process to really sleep where in Mac OS 9 Carbon, it loops behind the scenes. This makes Mac OS X Carbon-ised programmes nearly as efficient as text-based programmes.
     

Share This Page