>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2005 at 3:00 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 2005/10/4, Andreas Girardet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> {| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"
>> ! SUPER Version !! 3d FPS !! app1 !! app2 !! app3 !! boot1 !! boot2
!!
>> harddisc1 !! harddisc2
>>
>>
>> 10.0 03.102005 - [[SLICK]] (with [[SUPER preloading]] and binary
>> drivers) || 1944.400 || 4 || 3 || 23 || 33 || 8 || 118 MB in 3.02
=
>> 39.01 MB/sec || 2384 MB in 2.00 = 1191.93 MB/sec
>>
>>
>> compared to
>>
>>
>> 10.0 final (preloading is now standard) 312 5 3
>> 25 26 14 118 MB in 3.02 = 39.12 MB/sec 2336 MB in
2.00
>> = 1167.93 MB/sec
>>
>> Speed increase minimal (apart from 3d and slower first boot) but
>> overall the SLICK system just feels more responsive. Am I right
with
>> this assumption? Can anyone provide feedback as I am certainly
slightly
>> subjective ...
>>
>> Andreas
>
> Based on my experience with previous release (just downloaded the
> latest and preparing to install it), SLICK feels more responsive
than
> other I have tried.
>
Hi Yukka
Great Thanks
What I am interested to hear about is the "snappy" factor. Something
very hard to catch with benchmarks. But we all know when it is there or
not.
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
