KRUYSBER@HNYKUN53.BITNET (08/14/89)
To complete the QINDEX15 measurements I've compared QuickST 1.46 and
TurboST 1.2.
These two only affect the BIOS operations, so I'll give you these
results only.
All measures were done with a 1040ST with no accessories or AUTO folder
programs (except QSTAUTO.PRG...)
Normal QuickST TurboST
BIOS character output 99 150 312
BIOS string output 99 578 725
BIOS text scrolling 99 175 178
GEM resource drawing 99 167 125
Psychological data: a difference between 578-725 is not 3.5 times the
difference between 167-125! The ratio 725/578 = 1.25 and 167/125 = 1.31,
so these differences are about the same. 578 is however 5.78 as fast as
a normal 1040ST! The difference 167-125 is very noticeable. GEM resources
are drawn much quicker. This favours QuickST. The difference 578-725 is
pure mathematical, since the increase in speed of 578% in the QuickST
case is already striking enough! Another increase up to 725 is merely
'for the record': this is hardly noticable in reality.
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.
I'm not in the possession of QuickST 1.5 (witch should even be faster),
nor am I in the possession of TurboST 1.6 (yet?). The new TurboST should
handle GEM drawing much better one promissed to me...
Noud van Kruysbergen
N.I.C.I.
Mail Box 9104
6500 HE Nijmegen
The Netherlands
kruysbergen@hnykun53
P.S. I haven't done any QINDEX15 testing using cache programs, since these
programs keep the last information used in RAM. Reading the same infor-
mation 64 times increases the QINDEX measure considerable, but this is
not real! You'll never read the same information more than once normally,
so unless your cache memory is rather big you'll never reach this measure
in practice! Using a cache with these kind of measurements is one of
the pitfalls I mentioned the first time.swklassen@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) (08/15/89)
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