|
|
Re: Hare, version 1.1 (Community)
Re: Hare, version 1.1 // Community
Apr 21, 2001, 2:40am
ok now you're goading him... shame on you. ;)
SW Chris
[View Quote]"wing" <bathgate at prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3ae0ac69 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> You said that, I don't see it anywhere on the website :)
> I don't take the claims of the 3rd party, I take the claims of the
developer.
> "tyrell" <tyrell1 at sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AE018E2.1B546FBC at sk.sympatico.ca...
> Hello, Earth calling...
> "It'l either work for you or DEL it..."
> Nuff said...
> wing wrote:
> The point is that it appears to only be functional on a rather small range
of hardware, it doesn't even make any difference on my
> K6-2 300, which in all honesty SUCKS. Now it could work wonders for Intel
equipment, my ONLY Intel box is somewhat of a science
> project and doesn't have a hard drive. And yes, I know Durons don't go to
1200 standard, I just force mine too, and it does so
> right well. It's only a 71% overclock. Now onto the claims. First, the
onboard benchmark shows a 170% speed increase for my
> computer, which I set to be a Duron 900 with a GeForce II MX and 128mb of
RAM to keep it within range of sensibility. This, in all
> seriousness appears to be BS. On their front page, they claim that Word
takes a long time to load on their ficticious computer.
> Microsoft Word 2000 takes exactly 1 second to go from button press to the
blank document. This remains EXACTLY the same. Tribes 2
> with the latest patch. Without Hare, I get 70FPS maxed details in
1280x1024x32. With Hare, I get 65FPS, apparently because it's
> meddling in the 3d card and CPU cycles. I found similar events on my AMD
K6-2 300 with a TNT2 Vanta LT and 128mb RAM. If you can't
> make that perform better, I don't hold out much hope for any PCs. You
could probably make a FORTUNE selling that to eMachines
> though, 'cuz those are NOWHERE near the performance machines you're likely
to find among most of us here. As soon as I get the time,
> probably this weekend I'll take actual benchmarks with 3rd party programs.
Also, whats up with telling you to reboot every 16 hours
> or so (1000 minutes)? EVERY computer is capable of operating for much
longer than 16 hours if all it's technical issues are
> resolved. Of course, this program appears to be designed specifically for
systems with extreme technical issues anyway. I do NOT
> take a biased approach to testing software, it either works or it does
not. I either prove or disprove claims and I can smell a lie
> when it's stuck right under my nose.
> "tyrell" <tyrell1 at sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ADFDA6D.67782E95 at sk.sympatico.ca...
1200... and if you read the PR Spin >you'l see it says 'up
> to' 200%... It's a given that your >system won't see any improvement for
you'v already >decided it won't work...
> --
> Tyrell - Alpha Prime - 21.8s 457e 90 - "Mundus vult decipi"
> "Eat well, stay fit, die anyway."
> http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/ty1/index.html
> http://www.dlcwest.com/~rpatter/index.html
> ICQ UN - 272905
> All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
>
>
>
|
|
