Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!oliveb!tymix!antares!tardis!jms
From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: QMouse vs. MachII
Message-ID: <251@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Date: 12 Jun 89 04:20:42 GMT
References: <17011@louie.udel.EDU> <1312@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <243@tardis.Tymnet.COM> <19360@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Field Service Co, San Jose CA
Lines: 13

In article <19360@cup.portal.com> stephan@cup.portal.com (Stephen Derek Schaem) writes:
> Dmouse could give you the right path, but what I wanted to say is; If you
>dont care about screen to back use Qmouse.
> It's everything you need and also will eat less of your CPU time... 
>80-110% less than Dmouse.

Bullshit.  You can't get 110% less CPU time, by definition of percent.xD
(I'd like to see the numbers that led you to this erroneous conclusion.)
-- 
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@tymix.tymnet.com
McDonnell Douglas FSCO  | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-D21    | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"