Goldkin <goldkin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'tspam.goldkin.net> writes:
> Rhainor wrote:
>> 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.
Good point(s).
> 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.
Interesting; in Linux, I've seen nothing but performance improvements.
However, none of the really ****ny features appear to be there (basing
this on a look at some recent screenshots). I suspect I need to tweak
my config drastically...
Which implies that you can tweak the config file, at least in Linux, and
get a high-performance client. I shall have to experiment.
--
darkside
DC2.Da G"two-spirit" L W-- T- Phvlwlt Sks,wl Cwl,pu B- A(rv+++)
Fr^++"Linux nut" Nw M+++! O H-- $ Fv R++ Ac~ J++ S- U I--# V+
Q+ Tc+++![sw] E++
|
