On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:27:04 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Hello:
> Most of my fellow list subscribers do not report anything impressive when
> comparing Arachne's performance on a 386sx vs. a Pentium. My own
> experience is quite different.
So is mine. Got Arachne 1.66 on both a 486 66MHz with 8MB memory,
and on a P350 with 32MB memory. The 486 with 4G, the P350 have Arachne
on the 8G disk drive.
The 486 runs Arachne quite quickly and its very good.
The pentium got it running VERY fast! Takes less then a second to load,
and by the way: no ram drive in both cases.
The only places where the browser is still lagging behind is the
JPG&PNG conversion.. guess that running external utilities will always
slow you down abit. :)
Virtual screens also slow you down alot, but its less felt on the P350.
.... I'm planning to use Arachne on the 1GHz Athelon machine, just
to see the speed... ;)
But its gonna be hard to do that one: winmodem, USB optical mouse..
When we bought that machine for my sister we made sure she'll get
the "best in the market for the normal user". Unfortunatly, it also
makes it DOS unfriendly. It even got Windows ME without the DOS option
in the boot. (I know about the patch that "fix" this, but this is not
my computer and she doesnt like to use DOS. So I cant do that one there.)
I'll just copy some hard-to-compile HTML files + big JPGs on that system
and test Arachne off-line with keyboard only.. Will boot from a DOS
boot disk to make sure Windows wouldnt affect the test results.
(i'll change the used shell to C:\COMMAND.COM after boot, to make sure
the diskette wouldnt slow it down as well during DOS access)
