Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: QMouse vs. MachII
Message-ID: <41230@bbn.COM>
Date: 12 Jun 89 05:34:57 GMT
References: <17011@louie.udel.EDU> <1312@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <243@tardis.Tymnet.COM> <19360@cup.portal.com> <251@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 16

In article <251@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes:
}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.)

Wadaya mean?  Maybe it makes the machine go _faster_!  You know... if you
have a big CPU-bound task that is taking FOREVER to run, you just fire up
enough of these puppies to generate enough _extra_ CPU speed so that you
can get it to go as fast as you please... sounds a bunch cheaper than
buying a '030..
  /b\