Article View: comp.sys.next.misc
Article #1589Re: Exception #2 (0.0) at 0x10037d4
From: mark.d.wuest
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:47
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:47
16 lines
1222 bytes
1222 bytes
In article <29E5ADA2.6F04@deneva.sdd.trw.com> verket@venice.sedd.trw.com (Paul B. Verket) writes: >: The problem was that I had not enable parity checking. Though >: NeXTAnswers says it is not required (and even points out that you take >: a performance hit by enabling it)... >I've heard about the performance hit before as well but I haven't >heard how much of a hit? What are your impressions? Well, 16 mb is always going to *look* faster than 8 mb on a Unix station ;-) (our stockroom ran out of 4 mb simms). ;-( *But*, when running the Concurrence demo, moving objects *is* more labored- looking than before, so I concur ;-) with NeXT's claim. Mark Wuest mark.wuest@att.com (TeXT Mail only, please) mdw@corona.att.com (NeXT Mail ok)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Apr15.124727.20994@cbfsb.cb.att.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsg.cb.att.com!mdwReferences:
<1992Apr9.213857.4117@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <29E5ADA2.6F04@deneva.sdd.trw.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsg.cb.att.com!mdw From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc Subject: Re: Exception #2 (0.0) at 0x10037d4 Message-ID: <1992Apr15.124727.20994@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Date: 15 Apr 92 12:47:27 GMT References: <1992Apr9.213857.4117@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <29E5ADA2.6F04@deneva.sdd.trw.com> Sender: news@cbfsb.cb.att.com Organization: AT&T Lines: 16