> >> Looks like you don"t have DMA :-( > > >Lack of DMA doesn't manifest itself as 0.4x. Requestor's computer (which > >was described in originating post) should perform over 2x without DMA. > >Lack of DMA doesn't manifest itself as "1 to 2 CPU spikes per second," > >but as high load all the time. The comment is hardly relevant. A. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Seems to be just another time where you like > to tell that you are not interested in > a cooperation, why?
What are you talking about? How on whole earth does the fact that I challenge your opinion makes me uncooperative? > It _really_ makes sense to run the readcd speed test. I didn't say that readcd test doesn't make sense. I said that even without DMA requestor's computer should have performed over 2x, not at .4x and therefore DMA is hardly the culprit, something else is. But we can talk about readcd in particular if you wish. Say it performs at lower than expected speed. Does it actually *prove* anything about DMA? It only indicates that *something* is wrong, it doesn't actually tells you that DMA is off. Keep in mind that user maintains that he explicitly checked DMA settings and found that they were on. A. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
