![]() ![]() However as you note, performance isn't everything. Now this is two virtual machines layered on top of a Mac, in effect, and the performance was still fast enough that a screen-full of description shot by faster than you could read.Īny Mac users out there could easily run MUSHclient under VMware if they had an old copy of Windows around to install on it, or failing that, install Ubuntu for nothing, and still run it, as I just did. I just tested running on VMware on my Mac, with Ubuntu installed as a virtual machine, and under Ubuntu I ran Wine, and under Wine I ran MUSHclient. There is more to speed that being GUI or non-GUI, or written in C++ or some other language. However a test soon showed that this was false. I remember a while back a client was claimed to be faster - indeed the claim was it "must be faster" because it was a console application, not a GUI application. A quick browse seems to indicate Mudlet also uses PCRE, so the raw trigger matching should be comparable. For one thing I am using the PCRE engine (itself very powerful). For example, if "processing speed" is claimed to be faster, processing what? Triggers? I am happy to test trigger matching against any other client. I don't really want to get into benchmark-envy, and it is interesting that the implied claim that Mudlet is faster is not backed up by any factual claims. You notice Tsuujin said it "can't compare" not that it was faster or slower. "I said there was nothing like it." Which Alice did not venture to deny. "I didn't say there was nothing better," the King replied. "I should think throwing cold water over you would be better," Alice suggested: "or some sal-volatile." "There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint," he remarked to her, as he munched away. Nick Gammon Australia (22,884 posts) bio Forum Administrator With out stepping into "fanboy" territory, it'd be nice if you still had your BSD box and updated the Benchmark. Anyway, in their forums I've found comments like " MUSHclient also can't compare to mudlet's display or processing speed." () They also haven't actually published any benchmark numbers.Īnd, well, their client has some promising ideas in it (tho it performs a lot more like a version 0.7 than a 1.1), but a clean install of Mudlet on my machine is more sluggish than MC - with 9 years of plugins and triggers. ![]() Recently, a friend of mine asked me to check out Mudlet because he really wanted a native client on his mac, although he's happy with MC when he's not on battery power. But the benchmarks haven't been updated in 8 years. I realize that with todays hardware and todays bandwidth, performance really isn't too critical on a mudclient (even the slowest client should have enough hardware behind it to handle a paragraph of text every 2 seconds). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |