Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : TA-Quotes Plus -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unixgeek who wrote (7631)	11/6/1998 8:21:00 PM
From: TechTrader42	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11149

Hi, Unixgeek: The results seem to vary with each scan, but generally, I'm finding that they're more than twice as fast. A volume scan that once took 12 minutes now takes 3 minutes, 45 seconds with the beta. The same scan takes less than 2 minutes on a faster machine. Some scans haven't increased in speed as much. A resistance scan that used to take 2 minutes and 20 seconds now takes 1 minute, 20 seconds. This weekend, I'll test the scans at higher and lower elevations. Brooke

To: unixgeek who wrote (7631)	11/7/1998 9:56:00 PM
From: John Schott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11149

TWICE AS FAST I am getting interesting results (amid some crash problems). I installed the Beta on two relatively sluggish Pentium Thinkpads (560 - 133 MHZ and 380 - 1560 MHZ with MMX). The 560 has 34MB and the 380 has 48MB of RAM. They both have essentially the same 2.1 GB disk (carefully defragmented, too). Both machines are IBM economy specials - so they have no level 2 cache which effectively reduces their performance about 20%+ in my general experience relative to similar speed machines with L2 cache. But this isn't a QP2 performance comparison, just a general one. From some partial tests using some of the simple stock scans supplied with QP: * 560 (limited testing): Scan speeds seem to offer about a 50% improvement (i.e. run in about 2/3 the time * 380: Scan speeds range from about 2.4 to 3 times faster ! I haven't deduced any reason for the significant improvement difference. Anyone have any ideas why?