Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!miavx1!rlcollins
From: rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st.tech
Subject: Re: TurboST vs. QuickST II
Message-ID: <3558.27a47005@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 91 23:40:05 GMT
References: <1991Jan26.030347.20842@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Lines: 38

In article <1991Jan26.030347.20842@odin.corp.sgi.com>, gints@prophet.sgi.com (Gints Klimanis) writes:
> Hi !!
> 
> 	I am interested in knowing the relative strengths of TurboST and
> QuickST II.  Please help me.

Well, I got out Quick Index and did a little test. Here's the results:

 (This was run on a 1 meg 1040ST with TOS 1.4 on a mono monitor)

		Neither		Quick ST 2.1		Turbo ST 1.8
TOS Text	 100%		  327%			   315%
TOS String	 100%		  1304%			   1255%
TOS Scroll	 100%		  134%			   133%
GEM Dialog	 100%		  284%			   235%

Memory Usage:      0K		  23.7K			   53.1K

I've been using Quick ST II for a couple of months now, and haven't run 
into a single problem. (And with the CONS_FIX prg, I can run .TOS and .TTP 
in the Gemini Console window.)

Quick ST is also cheaper, and you get a few goodies with it. (QINDEX.PRG, 
the desktop customizer prg....)


(Standard disclaimers apply)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            o__)\			     rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET
           /     )			      RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
          /     /  ____                       R.COLLINS1  (On GEnie)
         /(____/__(_) o)_/
                      /)			[ || ]   Atari Computers,
      "There is no Substitute."                 [ || ]    They're not just
 Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat        // || \\   for breakfast 
            gbb pybfr!                        //  ||  \\  anymore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~