cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (06/05/90)
I am curious. Which is faster, TurboST or QuickST? I know QuickST is much cheaper and comes with extra tools, but what do the raw speed numbers look like? I don't own either, but I became a bit curious after reading an article in Computer Shopper which mentioned both "software blitters." Any info would be appreciated. Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |Donde hay una cerveza cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |hay un plan. (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null |El Guerrero Aereo es el rey! ------------------------------+---------------------------
ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) (06/06/90)
In article <1990Jun5.011452.16818@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: >I am curious. Which is faster, TurboST or QuickST? I know QuickST >is much cheaper and comes with extra tools, but what do the raw >speed numbers look like? I don't own either, but I became a bit >curious after reading an article in Computer Shopper which mentioned >both "software blitters." > >Any info would be appreciated. both Quick ST and Turbo ST are almost identical in speed for the system fonts (8 by 16, 8 by 8, 6 by 6), with Turbo just slightly ahead. but the latest revision of Quick ST will now support GDOS fonts, which is something that Turbo ST says right on its package that it does not support! if those few extra percent are worth it for you, get Turbo, but if you like your precious system memory (Quick takes less than half of Turbo's memory), get Quick ST. plus Quick ST fully supports Moniterm with no special monkeying around with filenames, etc, and it also supports custom desktop backgrounds and fill patterns. as well, Quick ST supplies a few extra utilities which make life easier for the Atari ST (desktop customizer, ART ST graphics software, Quick View) hope this helps! -- ========Ignac A. Kolenko (The Ig)=======watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac========= I refuse to succumb to societal pressure and give a witty quote in my .sig!!! =============================================================================
rmacgreg@cs.strath.ac.uk (Sorcerer) (06/06/90)
In article <1990Jun5.011452.16818@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: >I am curious. Which is faster, TurboST or QuickST? As far as I can tell there is no difference between them. QuickST is incompatible with some other DA's and TurboST tends to be incompatible with the same ones (though not always). The Sorcerer ___ _____ / (rmacgreg @ uk.ac.strath.cs) | |__ __ /___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ | | | |__| / / / / / / /__/ / / /__/ / / | | | |__ ___/ /__/ / /__ /__ / /__ / is 'Only visiting this planet.'
bdeskin@cognos.UUCP (Bob Deskin) (06/10/90)
Based on tests on my own TOS 1.0 based machine on QUICK ST 2.1 (the latest) as compared to Turbo ST 1.8 (from an article on Genie), the BIOS text and BIOS scroll are virtually the same at about 370% and 175% improvement. Turbo ST is slightly better for BIOS string at 2094% to 1845%, but you'll probably never notice the difference. Where Turbo ST is better is GEM draw at 360% compared to 240%. This is probably a noticable difference. You'll also have to consider the price difference and memory usage. For me, it's QUICK ST all the way. -- Bob Deskin Cognos Incorporated (613) 738-1338 ext 5003 P.O. Box 9707 FAX (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!bdeskin Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1G 3Z4
larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) (06/16/90)
Togheter with 16 MHz Hyper cache you get this results: Turbo-ST Quick-ST Both !!!! Char 501 486 540 Text 2001 1871 2001 Scr 137 142 137 GEM 378 375 382 Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association
nrc@cbnews.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) (07/02/90)
First a little disclaimer, I own the fourth copy of Turbo ST sold and I have been beta testing for SofTrek since not long after that purchase. I am personally responsible for holding up the release of three different Turbo ST updates by discovering bugs at the last minute. :-) I am speaking only for myself. The folks at SofTrek are much too busy for this sort of thing. In article <1996@electro.com> ignac@electro.com (Ignac Kolenko) writes: > >As I have stated in a few postings to this newsgroup, I have left the >company as a full time employee. I am still a developper for Branch Always >since anything I develop will be marketed through Branch Always, and I will >be paid royalties. Branch Always is still around, and as long as Turbo ST >exists and is upgraded, so will Quick ST. This strikes me as an odd way to define your company's product. Perhaps you've just worded it poorly but it sounds like your product exists not to meet your customer's needs but rather to compete with Turbo ST. >Quick ST supports GDOS fonts, Turbo ST doesn't. This could be misleading. True, as of the latest version of Turbo ST I don't think SofTrek has replaced any of the OS functions that deal with GDOS fonts specifically. But this does _not_ mean that Turbo ST will not speed up many programs that use GDOS fonts. The best example is Publisher ST where I can scroll through a typical page up to _twice_ as fast with Turbo ST as without. I suspect that the reason they haven't replaced GDOS fonts yet is that they've been pursuing speed improvements in order of what would seem to be useful to the largest number of costumers. Their time spent specifically on speeding up Word Perfect (which I hear Quick ST still doesn't affect significantly) has probably been a greater boon to their users than time spent speeding up GDOS. >That's all there is to it. Unfortunately, since Darek is >currently in the process of moving to Seattle to begin his real job at >Microsoft (boo hiss - the MSDOS people! :-) there's no one around to >respond to questions. I sincerely hope that people out there can understand >this current situation and not draw any hasty conclusions from it. This is sort of silly. You ask that we please excuse your lack of support while you get on with your 'real jobs' but you ask that we don't say that there are any problems with your support? Producing Turbo ST _is_ the people at SofTrek's "real job." They're attempting to make a living _supporting_ ST users the way they expect to be supported. That explains the price differential between the two products in a nutshell. >I for one know that we have done >more than SoftTrek has ever done (I have never received anything from >SoftTrek about Turbo ST upgrades being available, except for 1 newsletter. >Their upgrades are more expensive, and frankly, for the few percent >difference in speed between Turbo and Quick, I think there is no question >that Quick ST is better. unless some of you out there can really tell >the difference between 1300% and 1305% or whatever the current numbers are.) More than SofTrek has ever done? I can't agree. SofTrek was accelerating STs before there was any other way to do it, no blitters, no Turbo16 boards and certainly no Quick ST. I don't know whether there would have even been a Quick ST were it not for Turbo ST. Your claim that the difference between Quick ST and Turbo ST is merely the difference between a 1300% and 1305% acceleration (numbers arrived at with Branch Always' own benchmarking program) is a gross over simplification of the issue. A benchmarking program may or may not reflect how a software accelerator affects a user's real world application. When the first demo of the commercial version of Quick ST came out claiming based on benchmarks to be nearly as fast as Turbo ST I gave it a try. My experience at that time was that while Quick ST did speed up some programs nearly as much as Turbo ST there were other programs, some of which I use heavily, where Turbo ST held a significant advantage. I also noticed that at least that version of Quick ST seemed more bomb prone than Turbo ST. I'd recommend that anyone who has chosen Quick ST over Turbo ST based souly on benchmarks and/or price try one of the Turbo ST demos that can be found on GEnie or perhaps your local BBS. You may find that the difference in your day to day applications is greater than you have been lead to believe by the "benchmarks." If so, now's the time to find out because I'm told that SofTrek will be giving a discount on the purchase of Turbo ST to anyone who sends in their original Quick ST disk. According to the press release for their latest update (version 1.82) the offer is good until September. The announcement should be in the latest online newsletters soon. I can email the announcement to anyone who can't find it elsewhere. "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell att!cbnews!nrc nrc@cbnews.att.com
ignac@electro.com (Ignac Kolenko) (07/03/90)
I publicly retract ALL that I have said about Quick ST and Turbo ST in my last posting. I have received all kinds of flak over what I have said, and since I don't work for Branch Always Software anymore, I really don't need or want the flak. Both Turbo and Quick are excellent products, and they deserve the best support from all Atarians. If I sounded harsh and critical, it was because I perceived that other Netters were hacking Quick ST to pieces, and I became a little defensive at the time. I am quite sorry. Please accept my apologies. but, just one point i'd like to make ... :-) In article <1990Jul2.043449.14282@cbnews.att.com> nrc@cbnews.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes: >This strikes me as an odd way to define your company's product. >Perhaps you've just worded it poorly but it sounds like your product >exists not to meet your customer's needs but rather to compete with >Turbo ST. unfortunately, competition is what keeps the western economies alive and kicking. Darek at the time he began to tinker with the idea of quick st saw that Turbo ST was a necessary idea, but since it was the only product out there, it was far too expensive and he felt it needed some competition. The customer NEEDS an INEXPENSIVE solution, and we offered it. this sounds like the old complaints about how Atari itself doesn't offer the same level of support as does a company like Apple. if you buy a product which costs far less than the competition, then you have to realize that there are reasons for such price differentials. while we sold Quick ST as shareware, the author of Turbo ST claimed we were unfair competition to Turbo. Now that Quick is commercial, there are still problems with competition?? Sorry, but Darek enjoys what he does (and i did enjoy it until all this crap started recently) and he will continue to do so indefinatly. so get used to it, atari world! competition will continue to exist! now please, let's not see any more flame wars about either product, OK? Let the consumer make the informed choice over which product to choose through impartial third party reviews, demos at Atari shows, user group meetings, etc. I've been using Quick now for over a year, and i like it. Mr. Caldwell has been using Turbo for a few year, and he likes Turbo. So which is better?? It's not up to me or him to decide for the atari world. cheers! -- ========Ignac A. Kolenko (The Ig)=======watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac========= "Blowed up REAL good!" - Big Jim McBob (Celebrity Blowup - SCTV) =============================================================================
bill@mwca.UUCP (Bill Sheppard) (07/03/90)
In article <1990Jul2.043449.14282@cbnews.att.com> nrc@cbnews.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes: >First a little disclaimer, I own the fourth copy of Turbo ST sold and >I have been beta testing for SofTrek... >In article <1996@electro.com> ignac@electro.com (Ignac Kolenko) writes: >>... >>Quick ST supports GDOS fonts, Turbo ST doesn't. >>... >>...other Quick ST/Turbo ST comparisons >... >"Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell > att!cbnews!nrc > nrc@cbnews.att.com Can I put in a plea that this not become July's first full-fledged overblown war of words between opposing camps? Turbo ST and Quick ST each have good and bad points, they are both well-supported products, and the competition between them has doubtlessly made them both much better products. Both sides have made informative postings, let's not have it degenerate into mindless name-calling. (So far it hasn't, I'm just trying to prevent it). Thanks!!! -- ################################################################################ # Bill Sheppard # OS-9: Seven generations beyond __/_!! # # Microware Systems Corporation # OS-9000: 4500 times better than... # #######Opinions expressed are my own, though you'd be wise to adopt them!#######
alanh@logitek.co.uk (Alan Hourihane) (02/18/91)
Hi netters, With all this talk about Turbo ST and Quick ST, I decided to put it to the test on my machine. I have an Atari 520STFM upgraded to 2.5MB and TOS 1.0 I am using Quick ST V2.2D-(Demo Version) and Turbo ST V1.6D-(Demo version). I received these figures:- Quick ST 2.2D Turbo ST 1.6D Low Resolution -------------- Tos Text 266% 454% Tos String 452% 864% Tos Scroll 176% 174% Gem Dialog 158% 199% Medium Rsolution ---------------- Tos Text 355% 361% Tos String 1845% 1428% Tos Scroll 178% 182% Gem Dialog 231% 187% High Resolution --------------- Tos Text 335% 339% Tos String 1311% 1270% Tos Scroll 181% 186% Gem Dialog 229% 212% I would like to see what people get with a similar setup, but with both commercial versions rather than the demos. Alan Hourihane e-mail: alanh@logitek.co.uk -- News User
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (02/20/91)
alanh@logitek.co.uk (Alan Hourihane) writes: - With all this talk about Turbo ST and Quick ST, I decided - to put it to the test on my machine. I have an Atari 520STFM upgraded - to 2.5MB and TOS 1.0 Any TOS 1.0 machine would return the same results as a 2.5meg 520STFM; that is, with nothing installed. With memory resident programs installed, you'd most likely get varied results. - I am using Quick ST V2.2D-(Demo Version) and Turbo ST - V1.6D-(Demo version). - - I received these figures:- - [figures deleted for space considerations] Unfortunately, this comparison doesn't tell us anything about either program. The QuickST 2.2 Demo isn't running at full speed, for what reason I don't know; how do you test a program, which is supposed to speed up your computer considerably, with a demo that doesn't run at full speed? Secondly, TurboST is up to something like 1.84, in which case the TurboST1.6 Demo shouldn't even be allowed to line up on the starting blocks. Moreover, the TurboST1.6 Demo runs at full speed, but only runs for 15 minutes or so, if I remember correctly; IMHO, this is a better way of distributing a demo. - I would like to see what people get with a similar setup, - but with both commercial versions rather than the demos. I am also curious what people with the various versions of TOS get with the actual programs. Maybe, since I have both, I should find someone with TOS 1.0 and borrow their computer. Gee, what I have I gotten myself into? :^) -- Ed Krimen ............................................... ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico ||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661 / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (02/21/91)
When I had my ST, I tried both programs. The speedup is virtually
the same for both of them. The only difference I noticed at the
time was that TurboST seemed to be a little more robust (this was
about a year ago). Since the original poster said that his machine
has 2.5megs of RAM, I don't think size is an issue, but last I checked
TurboST was a LOT larger than QuickST. In the end, I chose TurboST
since I also had 2.5megs of RAM.
ciao,
Chris
------------------------------+---------------------------
Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan!
(c)All rights reserved. |
Send flames to /dev/null |
------------------------------+---------------------------alanh@logitek.co.uk (Alan Hourihane) (02/21/91)
Replying to Ed, Although Quick ST doesn't run at full speed it still speeds up the machine considerably, and by taking a look at Turbo ST's figures at low res. mode you can definately see it is virtually double the speed of Quick ST. And even on some of the other resolutions Turbo ST 1.6, even though being an older version does perform very well compared to Quick ST. This is for the reason I for real figures for the commercial versions, as I am thinking of buying one, but as yet don't know what speeds they can achieve. Any more info ???? -- News User
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (02/22/91)
I now have purchased both Turbo ST 1.82 and Quick ST 2.21 and have found
overall performance to be very close with one notable exception. That is,
Turbo ST speeds up softloaded system fonts (such as those that Neodesk 3 uses)
to the same degree as the built-in fonts while Quick ST only manages about
half the speed-up of these fonts. But I like the fact that Quick ST does not
require a gol-durn accessory slot (the Turbo ST accessory bombs when loaded
in MultiDesk I find), and it does take less memory if you don't
use the desktop pic. For now I am just bagging my fancy Neodesk font and
using Quick ST and plan to upgrade to Quick ST 3 when it comes out.
I still need to test whether Quick ST messes up Easy Draw the way Turbo ST
does...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Andy Cassino %
% Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) (02/26/91)
From article <1991Feb22.182952.16058@ecst.csuchico.edu>, by ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen): Previously quoted article deleted, Ed replies: > Here's what I'd tell any person who's interested in TST and QST: > >If you want all the other goodies that QST has, like background pics >and fills and the file viewer and stuff, then go for it. However, if > you use something like NeoDesk that already has background pics, >fills, and a file viewer, and you like the little bit of screen speed > increase that TST gives over QST, then get QST. > > Also keep in mind that QST takes up less memory than TST (if you > don't have the picture installed on QST). > > I bought QuickST and now I don't use it. I use Turbo ST 'cause it's > faster. Ed, I have both also. Only one thing confuses me - if TST is faster for replacement mono fonts, why is it *much* slower for GDOS fonts and fonts using attributes such as italic and bold? I find the difference in speed maddening when I use WordUP 3.0 (still need the last upgrade disk 8-) and therefore stick to QST for now. Try the QST test for text with attributes and/or GDOS to see what I mean. Oh yeah I, run *both* the QST background picture and the NEODESK one (that's one reason why I got 2.5 Meg, for frills 8-) that way - or if I used the QST fills - I can get a picture (or fill) behind my Gem programs as well as on the Desktop. Finally (I know, RTFM 8-) is there a way to store and reread NeoDesk fill patterns - a RSC file perhaps? thanks, Bob Pegram pegram@griffin.uvm.edu or ...!uvm-gen!pegram
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (02/26/91)
In article <1991Feb25.182842.6162@uvm.edu> pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) writes: >From article <1991Feb22.182952.16058@ecst.csuchico.edu>, by >ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen): > >Previously quoted article deleted, Ed replies: > >> Here's what I'd tell any person who's interested in TST and QST: >> >>If you want all the other goodies that QST has, like background pics >>and fills and the file viewer and stuff, then go for it. However, if >> you use something like NeoDesk that already has background pics, >>fills, and a file viewer, and you like the little bit of screen speed >> increase that TST gives over QST, then get QST. >> >> Also keep in mind that QST takes up less memory than TST (if you >> don't have the picture installed on QST). >> >> I bought QuickST and now I don't use it. I use Turbo ST 'cause it's >> faster. > >Ed, I have both also. Only one thing confuses me - if TST is faster >for replacement mono fonts, why is it *much* slower for GDOS fonts and >fonts using attributes such as italic and bold? I find the difference >in speed maddening when I use WordUP 3.0 (still need the last upgrade >disk 8-) and therefore stick to QST for now. > Hmm, I didn't know QST was faster than TST with GDOS fonts. Thanks for the info. >Try the QST test for text with attributes and/or GDOS to see what I >mean. Oh yeah I, run *both* the QST background picture and the >NEODESK one (that's one reason why I got 2.5 Meg, for frills 8-) that >way - or if I used the QST fills - I can get a picture (or fill) >behind my Gem programs as well as on the Desktop. > I tried the text with attributes benchmarks included on the QST disk and QST blew TST away. I think I mentioned this in my original comparison. RE 2.5meg: yeah, that's mostly the reason why I have two megs in my STe. I think I need 2 more meg though. :^) RE: QST fills: good idea. Now I've found a reason to use QST. :^) >Finally (I know, RTFM 8-) is there a way to store and reread NeoDesk >fill patterns - a RSC file perhaps? > Like if you create a fill pattern and want to save it? I don't know of a feature especially for saving fills, but you may be able to save a custom fill pattern in a NIC file. -- Ed Krimen ............................................... ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico ||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661 / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0
boyd@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd) (02/26/91)
Could someone with QuickST, TurboST 1.8 (or whatever the latest version is),
and Flash 1.6 please test something for me? When using VT-100 mode in Flash
(type = ANSI), underlined text shows up as underlined text, for example in
most man pages there is some at the top. However, when I have TurboST 1.6
installed, this no longer works. Underlined text comes out as regular text.
Could someone please see if this is true for QuickST and the new TurboST?
I am trying to decide whether to upgrade my TurboST or just buy QuickST.
Thanks in advance.
--
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Mickey R. Boyd | "It's amazing how much growing up
FSU Computer Science | resembles being too tired."
Technical Support Group |
email: boyd@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu | - Heinlein
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) (02/26/91)
In article <1991Feb19.235931.21308@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes: >alanh@logitek.co.uk (Alan Hourihane) writes: > >- I am using Quick ST V2.2D-(Demo Version) and Turbo ST >- V1.6D-(Demo version). >- >- I received these figures:- >- [figures deleted for space considerations] > After you posted your comparison about two weeks ago I wrote you a lenthy email (two in fact) with a list of comments about your comparison of the two products. I have attempted to send this email several times through different paths but it keeps being bounced back. So Ed, if you are reading this, please contact me. One of my main objections, which I think is important, is that there are a growing number of machines (especially in Germany) that are incompatible with Turbo ST. The TT. Overscan. Autoswitch Overscan. Large screen monitors. 68020 and 68030 accelerators. All of these enhancements will crash your ST or TT if you use Turbo ST. You talked of running benchmarks on TOS 1.0. Geez, it's good to know that Turbo ST is compatible with obsolete versions of TOS, but not with the latest machines. Quick ST currently supports all the above enhancements (except for 256 color mode on the TT, which will be supported in version 3.0). Considering that Softrek (and other software developers such as the Codeheads) have told the ST community to not expect any new software from them, I find it difficult to understand how you could recommend their product. Again, please contact me so we can discuss this in greater detail. - Darek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darek Mihocka ph:(206)-885-5893 All views expressed are my own. Branch Always Software, 14150 NE 20th St. Suite 302, Bellevue, WA 98007 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave_Ninjajr_Flory@cup.portal.com (02/26/91)
Andy, I think you need to check out your system. I have used Turbo ST, both mono and color in Multidesk for many moons with no problems. Do you have the latest versions of both? I'm using them on a mega 4 with Adspeed.
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (02/27/91)
Just last night (Feb25) I was on GEnie and checked out the TurboST and CodeHead topics for grins. I learned a few things I was not aware of, and apparently darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) is not either, for he writes: | One of my main objections, which I think is important, is that there | are a growing number of machines (especially in Germany) that are | incompatible with Turbo ST. The TT. Overscan. Autoswitch Overscan. | Large screen monitors. 68020 and 68030 accelerators. All of these | enhancements will crash your ST or TT if you use Turbo ST. The latest version of TurboSt is 1.84 and it now supports accelerators. | Considering that Softrek (and other software developers | such as the Codeheads) have told the ST community to not expect any | new software from them, I find it difficult to understand how you could | recommend their product. Wayne Buckholdt (who *is* SofTrek) is acquiring a TT and hi-res multisync monitor to support these new systems. CodeHead just announced HotWire 3.0, a major upgrade, available NOW. A CodeKeys upgrade is due soon. It was distressing to learn that CodeKeys has sold only 500 copies world-wide, with estimates of thousands of pirated copies in circulation on on pirate BBS's. BTW, I previously said TurboST did not have a auto program version - not true! I just didn't look close enough at my distribution disk. Installed it last night and it works fine. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Andy Cassino % % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino) (02/27/91)
Dave_Ninjajr_Flory@cup.portal.com writes: | | Andy, I think you need to check out your system. I have used Turbo ST, both | mono and color in Multidesk for many moons with no problems. Do you have | the latest versions of both? I'm using them on a mega 4 with Adspeed. | ---------- As I found out on GEnie last night, I'm a couple of upgrades behind on Multidesk. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Andy Cassino % % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
SAMcinty@exua.exeter.ac.uk (Scott McIntyre) (02/28/91)
In article <1854@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Christopher M Mauritz writes: >When I had my ST, I tried both programs. The speedup is virtually >the same for both of them. The only difference I noticed at the >time was that TurboST seemed to be a little more robust (this was >about a year ago). Since the original poster said that his machine >has 2.5megs of RAM, I don't think size is an issue, but last I checked >TurboST was a LOT larger than QuickST. In the end, I chose TurboST >since I also had 2.5megs of RAM. > >ciao, > >Chris A few days ago I got my copy of TurboST from a distributor here in the UK...and I am amazed. They are up to version 1.84, if those of you that have it didn't know...and it can make a drastic improvement to the working environment of the ST. I've got 4megs, and like Chris, I doubt that size of memory will effect the running speed much, if at all...but the improvement over no TST is stunning, especially for file opens and closes, and other simple things like that. I think the main improvement in this version is that it has been split into a mono or colour or both program, which you install according to your system. I've only got the SM124 so I can't say on speed increases for the other options. Running on NeoDesk 3.01 it dramatically improves the speed.... Highly reccomended... Scott
nrc@cbnews.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) (03/01/91)
From article <5440158@hplsla.HP.COM>, by andyc@hplsla.HP.COM (Andy Cassino): > > Just last night (Feb25) I was on GEnie and checked out the TurboST and > CodeHead topics for grins. I learned a few things I was not aware of, > and apparently darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) is not either, for > he writes: Darek Mihocka is not the best source of information about SoftTrek or Turbo ST. This is not the first time he has been mistaken about the features or compatibility of Turbo ST. I don't believe he does so purposely but his hype does get a bit thick at times. I recommend that anyone who is looking for a software accelerator obtain the latest version of the demos for the various software accelerators and and run controlled benchmarks on their own applications. Benchmarks obtained from a dedicated benchmarking program - particularly one written by one of the companies who's product is being compared - may have little relation to your real world results. I found that all of my applications were faster with Turbo ST by a much wider margin than the benchmarks might lead you to expect. This was something like Turbo ST 1.8 vs. Quick ST 2.0. Don't take my word for it, I'm a long time Turbo ST beta tester and no less biased than Derek, try it for yourself. Find out for sure which one is better for _you_, not for some benchmark. > | Considering that Softrek (and other software developers > | such as the Codeheads) have told the ST community to not expect any > | new software from them, I find it difficult to understand how you could > | recommend their product. > > Wayne Buckholdt (who *is* SofTrek) is acquiring a TT and hi-res multisync > monitor to support these new systems. It may be that Wayne meant not to expect any _new_ software, as opposed to updates to old software. Considering that the TT is supposed to be ST compatible I wouldn't call a program tweeked to run on it "new software". "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell AT&T Network Systems att!cbnews!nrc nrc@cbnews.att.com