Performance on MAC

[Alun Champion]

I find some parts of 2.6 noticeably slower on the Mac than 2.4.X, like
the accounts tree, but the reporting is significantly faster. Not sure
what was changed in 2.6 vs. 2.4 they both use GTK.

On 2 January 2014 07:22, Robert Kesterson <robertk at robertk.com> wrote:
>
> I have a 2009 Mac Pro and Gnucash does seem slow, but not unreasonably so.
> It is definitely not as responsive as most other applications, but I still
> wouldn't characterize it so much as "slow" as just "not snappy".  I suspect
> it's just that GTK on OSX is slower than on other platforms, and I don't
> think there's much you can do about it (unless you want to rewrite some of
> the GTK code).  But I'd be happy to be wrong about that if anyone has
> suggestions.
>>
>> PeterO <mailto:petero at fotodomain.com>
>> January 2, 2014 at 12:20 AM
>>
>> Just wanted to check if there is a way getting a better response from the
>> UI
>> on Mavericks. I have a high end iMac (i7, 32GB, SSD) so hardware is not an
>> issue. It is only the UI that is slow, scrolling the account tree,
>> resizing
>> etc. Report performance is adequate.
>>
>> I have installed Gnucash under Ubuntu 13/Parallels and it is much faster
>> there despite going through VM.
>>
>> So if there is anything that can be done, please share,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gnucash.1415818.n4.nabble.com/Performance-on-MAC-tp4666775.html
>> Sent from the GnuCash - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnucash-user mailing list
>> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
>> -----
>> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
>> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.