Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!dahlia!swklassen From: swklassen@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: QINDEX15 measurents : QuickST 1.46 vs TurboST 1.2 Message-ID: <15918@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 15 Aug 89 14:16:58 GMT References: <8908140948.AA13449@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu Reply-To: swklassen@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 26 In article <8908140948.AA13449@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KRUYSBER@HNYKUN53.BITNET writes: > >Conclusion: the measures indicate a better BIOS text handling by TurboST >and a better GEM resource handling by QuickST. These measures however >have to be seen in the light of the human, indicating that QuickST is >(in the comparison of these two versions) preferable. > This conclusion must be tempered by the fact that QuickST and QIndex were written by the same people. ie. QuickST may be optimized more in areas which show up in QIndex but not as well in other areas. Given the large size of TurboST compared to QuickST my guess is that TurboST optimizes more system calls than does QuickST. At any rate at true comparison of the two requires a benchmark program written by a third party. I do not say this to smear the authors of QuickST, I think that they have done a wonderful job, I am merely pointing out that one may want to think twice about removing TurboST from all their disks. (On the other hand QuickST is a lot cheaper!) Steven W. Klassen Computer Science Major University of Waterloo