Yeah I think "port" is the right word, I'm finishing my article for
csound journal on hacking the OLPC, so I'm covering both the "porting"
issue, or how to cut down something that runs great on a 1.8 ghz dual
core machine to run on a puny 400 mghz processor.

But I also "cheat" by running sugar on a quad core desktop with 8 gigs
of ram, just for fun. On that kind of "giant" OLPC I can run super
huge csd's with no problem. But porting is the right word for OLPC
because its almost like antique hardware, but back in 1998 a 400mhgz
machine would've been a monster, so yesterday's monster machine is
today's "toy."

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Art Hunkins <abhunkin@uncg.edu> wrote:
> Does anyone have an explanation for the following bizarre (but verified)
> data regarding SR's and CPU usage on the OLPC? My test .csd is with
> ksmps=10, realtime, with MIDI input.
>
> SR=44100: Csound CPU usage = 26%, total CPU usage = 54%
> (SR=48000: 32% and 52%)
> SR=36000: 4% and 6%
> SR=32000: 3% and 5%
> SR=22050: <3% and 4%
>
> All conditions, to my knowledge, except for SR, were identical.
>
> It makes no sense to me, but the difference is real. I'll be using SR=32000
> or 36000 instead of 44100.
>
> Whatever the reason, I'll now be able to port *some* of what I'd hoped to
> the OLPC.
>
> Art Hunkins
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>