Rhainor wrote:
> "darkside" <darksidex3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:yuby778s8yu.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I dunno, 2 monitors and a modest computer can handle SL + Firefox +
>> everything else I do. Of course, that's at home - my work machine
>> certainly *could* handle SL, but I'd be too busy for it.
>>
>> Of course, I define a "modest computer" as a Sempron 2800+, 1gb ram,
>> and a geforce 6600gt... your definition may vary.. And Linux may make
a
>> difference here, with sane memory management and process scheduling.
>
> The biggest limiting factor for SL is not the power of the computer,
> it's the internet connection. Transferring all that data back and forth
> througth the series of tubes can prove challenging.
>
I can agree to this, having tested SL on a weaker DSL connection versus
broadband Cable, Windows and Linux, and various grades of hardware. If
the connection is poor, there's really no point in waiting for SL to
load. I find that SL likes to hog 20kbps, with peaks as high as 100-150.
However, Windlight royally screwed people who were on the technology
event horizon for SL on Windows.
It would be nice to see if they'd give optimization and performance a
bit more priority. There has been a distinctly cor****ate mindset at LL,
with a bent on new features at the expense of all else, since they're
the most visible contributions.
- Goldkin
|
