🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CMM.0.88.621382869.larserio@kyrre.uio.no>, larserio@ifi.uio.no (LarsErikOsterud) writes:
> I agree !!!
> Quick-ST gives a BIOS text increase of 500%
> The only thing the blitter gives is a GEM draw increase og about 5%
> (yes, I've tried it myself !!)

Turbo ST is even faster (about twice as fast).  I'm not sure about version
1.6 of Quick-ST (the latest I've seen is 1.46), and Darek and Ignac have
been too busy to post the comparison of 1.6 to Turbo-ST 1.6 that they
planned on about a month ago.

Here's some results from the (older) Quick-ST 1.46 vs Turbo-ST 1.6d (the
demo version) on a non-blitter, 2.5 meg 520 ST (using Quick-Index 1.5).
(running with TOS 1.0, in monochrome)

   Test      Quick     Turbo
   -----     -----     -----
   Text       151%      333%
   Strings    583%     1270%
   Scrolls    176%      185%
   GemDraws   168%      212%

Quick-ST 1.6 was supposed to be about 50% faster than 1.46.
For those who aren't aware, Turbo-ST is a commercial product, and 
Quick-ST is shareware.  As far as I know, Quick-ST is still sub-
stantially smaller than Turbo-ST, which may be a consideration if
you're tight on memory.

Standard disclaimers apply.  I haven't decided which one I want to
buy yet, mainly because I'd like to see what Quick-ST 1.6 can do,
and if they've got the little glitches out of it yet.

-- 
Mark T. O'Bryan                 Internet:  obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI  49008