880274d@aucs.uucp (Ralph Doncaster) (02/06/90)
I've seen GOMF 2.2 and noticed that it takes up a considerable amount of CPU time (according to Xoper). Does anyone know if 3.0 is as bad? What's so special about the GOMF button? -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Ralph Doncaster Don't Steal - The Government hates competition. | |880274d@AcadiaU.CA 329 CHI, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS B0P 1X0 | |UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai}!cs.dal.ca!aucs!880274d BITNET: 880274d@Acadia |
davidg@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (David Guntner) (02/07/90)
From article <1990Feb6.144743.28176@aucs.uucp>, by 880274d@aucs.uucp (Ralph Doncaster): > I've seen GOMF 2.2 and noticed that it takes up a considerable amount of CPU > time (according to Xoper). > Does anyone know if 3.0 is as bad? Actually, from what I've observed, GOMF is simply sucking up a lot of free CPU resources. I've noticed when running XOPER to monitor CPU activity, and have started some other task, that GOMF's CPU percentage will go down to accomidate (sp?) the new task. --Dave -- David Guntner UUCP: {ames, mit-eddie}!attctc!davidg INET: davidg@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (killer) "...New ship, but she's got the right name. ...Treat --Admiral L. McCoy her like a lady, and she'll always bring you home." "Encounter at Farpoint"