Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!gumby!obryan From: obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Mark O'Bryan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: TT announcement Message-ID: <853@gumby.cc.wmich.edu> Date: 10 Sep 89 02:11:52 GMT References: Organization: Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI Lines: 36 In article , larserio@ifi.uio.no (LarsErikOsterud) writes: > I agree !!! > Quick-ST gives a BIOS text increase of 500% > The only thing the blitter gives is a GEM draw increase og about 5% > (yes, I've tried it myself !!) Turbo ST is even faster (about twice as fast). I'm not sure about version 1.6 of Quick-ST (the latest I've seen is 1.46), and Darek and Ignac have been too busy to post the comparison of 1.6 to Turbo-ST 1.6 that they planned on about a month ago. Here's some results from the (older) Quick-ST 1.46 vs Turbo-ST 1.6d (the demo version) on a non-blitter, 2.5 meg 520 ST (using Quick-Index 1.5). (running with TOS 1.0, in monochrome) Test Quick Turbo ----- ----- ----- Text 151% 333% Strings 583% 1270% Scrolls 176% 185% GemDraws 168% 212% Quick-ST 1.6 was supposed to be about 50% faster than 1.46. For those who aren't aware, Turbo-ST is a commercial product, and Quick-ST is shareware. As far as I know, Quick-ST is still sub- stantially smaller than Turbo-ST, which may be a consideration if you're tight on memory. Standard disclaimers apply. I haven't decided which one I want to buy yet, mainly because I'd like to see what Quick-ST 1.6 can do, and if they've got the little glitches out of it yet. -- Mark T. O'Bryan Internet: obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI 49008