home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.danadata.dk!usenet
- From: hendis@aix1.danadata.dk (Henrik Dissing)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
- Subject: Re: Is MUI processor intensive?
- Date: 11 Feb 96 18:59:17 +0100
- Organization: DanaData Internet Services
- Message-ID: <909.6615T1139T859@aix1.danadata.dk>
- References: <9601300825.AA003em@hectortd.demon.co.uk> <487.6609T1155T528@login.dknet.dk>
- <754.6613T992T1265@netspace.net.au> <1843.6614T1133T2864@imaginet.fr>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pppaarh174.danadata.dk
- X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga;TCP/IP)
-
-
- On 10-Feb-96 21:19:09, UNREGISTERED VERSION wrote:
-
- >> MUI seems sluggish on my 33Mhz 040. Luckily nothing useful needs it or
- >> I'd be in trouble!
-
- > [TEASING MODE ON]
-
- > Could it be because of a very inefficient design of your '040 board?
- > With my 28MHz only PPS 040 for A2000, MUI is almost undetectable... ;-)
-
- > [TEASING MODE OFF]
-
- More likely, your reactivity is seriously damaged somehow :-)
-
- I have the exact same configuration plus a Picasso II, and I find MUI
- applications annoyingly slow compared to non-MUI dittos. I do run MUI
- 3.2 and my WB is 1024x768 in 8 colours.
-
- I'm not enough of a MUI-hater to keep away from all MUI programs (AmFTP
- is an example of a great MUI program) but from two comparable programs I
- always prefer the non-MUI one.
-
- --
- Henrik Dissing E-mail: hendis@aix1.danadata.dk
- Tranbjerg, Denmark FidoNet: 2:238/24.6
-
-