On 6/22/00 11:54 AM, Craig Spooner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Using such a method to establish your own baseline will not only give you
>> more accurate results, but will also save Scott Raney the many anticipated
>> headaches trying to figure out how to obtain consistent processor info
>> across three OS families. ;)
>
> Hmmm, I agree that you've come up with a clever workaround to the
> problem, but it's just that, a workaround! Granted, just knowing the
> name of the CPU doesn't tell you everything you need to know about
> the performance of a computer, but it's a big step in the right
> direction. And Scott *did* invite suggestions for improving this
> function in MC. ;-)
Well, if it's not really the processor info that we need as much as it is
some baseline performance index, how about requesting that function instead?
The problems with attempting to solve this problem with processor info alone
are many, and the value of such a method slender.
For example, how does one account for processors unknown at the time the MC
engine was last built?
A baseline function would provide exactly what's needed, and would be able
to account for any possible configuration, whether known in advance or not.
The remaining question is, given how trivial it is to script such a baseline
function, would we want Scott to put a priority on such an addition over
other features (like my personal favorite, being able to get the
modification date of a file)?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
Multimedia Design and Development for Mac, Windows, UNIX, and the Web
_____________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com
Tel: 323-225-3717 ICQ#60248349 Fax: 323-225-0716
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
