Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!cmm1 From: cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Quick ST vs Turbo ST Message-ID: <1991Feb20.190155.1854@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 20 Feb 91 19:01:55 GMT References: <1991Feb19.235931.21308@ecst.csuchico.edu> Sender: news@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Daily News) Reply-To: cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) Distribution: comp Organization: Columbia University Lines: 18 When I had my ST, I tried both programs. The speedup is virtually the same for both of them. The only difference I noticed at the time was that TurboST seemed to be a little more robust (this was about a year ago). Since the original poster said that his machine has 2.5megs of RAM, I don't think size is an issue, but last I checked TurboST was a LOT larger than QuickST. In the end, I chose TurboST since I also had 2.5megs of RAM. ciao, Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------