It makes a nice change to see someone trying to measure real life
computing speed with a package I actually use.
In the UK the magazine tests involve games I've never heard of. Having
thankfully missed out on versions 1 - 26 of Doom or whatever, the
fact that Doom 27 can be run at even higher
From: Peter Fairweather [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/22 Tue AM 06:46:02 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT Indulge me? (PS speed tests)
It makes a nice change to see someone trying to measure real life
computing speed with a package I actually use
Paul wrote:
What are you using to measure the speeds?
Wrist watch. :-)
- MCC
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, Michigan
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
At 10:06 AM 22/05/2007, Mark Cassino wrote:
Paul wrote:
What are you using to measure the speeds?
Wrist watch. :-)
Stop watch on my wrist watch :-)
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Hi Team,
I finally have my server back up and operational, long story (thanks
Christian) and a couple of lenses worth in $ value so it's better left
alone. All that now behind me and now that I'm in a better humor I
would like to assess how my now relatively old hardware is performing
(file
On 5/20/07, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2 x 9000 pixels x 16bit,
@ what resolution (300 PPI)?
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
It doesn't matter. It just has to be 2000 x 9000 pixels.
On May 20, 2007, at 2:23 AM, David Savage wrote:
On 5/20/07, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2 x 9000 pixels x 16bit,
@ what resolution (300 PPI)?
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Well it made 15 seconds worth of difference. Why? I don't know.
Cheers,
Dave
On 5/20/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't matter. It just has to be 2000 x 9000 pixels.
On May 20, 2007, at 2:23 AM, David Savage wrote:
On 5/20/07, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Digital Image Studio wrote:
If any of you are willing to indulge me by performing similar tests
(timing doesn't have to be too accurate) and posting your results
either public or private (along with a very basic system outline,
OS/CPU/RAM/Network) that would be much appreciated. My system
On 21/05/07, Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Rob -
My results -
70 gig WD Raptor SATA Drive - 12 seconds to save, 15 to load.
250 gig WD SATA - 20 seconds to save, 20 seconds to load.
120 gig Maxtor EIDE drive - 2 minutes to save and 1:45 to load (!)
500 gig WD My Book USB 2.0
Hi Rob,
Oxford IDE Device 1 58 p-LUN, 465.76 gig: 17 seconds to save,
thirteen seconds to open
Maxtor OX 7100, 280 gig: 13 seconds to save, 11 seconds to open
I have another of eachof the above.. They seem to perform the same
way. Three are firewire. One is wired internally on a Mac G4 dual
On 21/05/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Rob,
Oxford IDE Device 1 58 p-LUN, 465.76 gig: 17 seconds to save,
thirteen seconds to open
Maxtor OX 7100, 280 gig: 13 seconds to save, 11 seconds to open
I have another of eachof the above.. They seem to perform the same
way. Three
Digital Image Studio wrote:
Thanks for doing that, in the main your results pretty much accord
with mine, though the speed of your Maxtor is bit of a mystery. Maybe
your Secondry contoller isn't set to DMA mode? In the Device manager
under the IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers tab check the Advanced
What are you using to measure the speeds?
Paul
Mark Cassino wrote:
Digital Image Studio wrote:
Thanks for doing that, in the main your results pretty much accord
with mine, though the speed of your Maxtor is bit of a mystery. Maybe
your Secondry contoller isn't set to DMA mode? In the
14 matches
Mail list logo
