View Single Post
I've got a slower computer (2 Ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook with 2 GB) and a much larger database (500+ projects, 4000+ actions), and while there are certainly actions which are prone to inducing a bit of a pause (anything that causes it to generate a new window with most of those projects and actions displayed), I don't find it to be a problem in the grand scheme of things. One of my approaches is to avoid doing the things that cause the pauses! I've got a couple of main perspectives from which I do my work, and I just have a window open for each one rather than reconstructing them over and over. This does make OmniFocus start more slowly, but I run it around the clock so that isn't a big hit.

It may just be my imagination, but it seems like OF is quite a bit snappier for me when running off my Snow Leopard partition (which is on an external disk and thus at a disadvantage vs. my normal boot partition on the internal 7200 rpm disk). I'm not quite sure how to construct a decent set of experiments to reliably benchmark this, so I'm not going to try. Your mileage may vary.

Brian has commented that lots of projects with few actions puts more of a load on the program than a few projects with many actions, because there is more work to process a project than an action. Sounds like your average number of actions per project is reasonable, however.

You should definitely contact the support ninjas and see if they have any further suggestions, and also have them log a request for some more performance tuning. I've pointed out some examples of what appeared to be grossly inefficient code that have been greatly sped up in subsequent releases, so they do pay attention to such things.

The apples vs. oranges comparison with completely dissimilar apps (likely coded to use multiple cores) is all fine and well, but have you tried any of OmniFocus' competition with a similarly-sized database? If you're looking to buy a convertible sports car and can't decide between a Mazda Miata and a Honda S2000, you should probably compare them to each other, and not ding them both for lacking the luggage capacity of a 18 wheel tractor-trailer combo if you're not going to go into long-haul trucking, right? :-)