"Randall Schulz" <sinkhole@tarpit.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.04.17.57.16.773924@tarpit.net...

Bob,

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:37:00 -0500, Bob Simon wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:55:32 GMT, Martin 53N 1W
...

You could run s@h without running its screen saver. Better still would

be

to run the much faster CLI version. For your 'screen saver', just select
"Blank Screen" screen saver (no CPU wasting) which should support
password protection.

Thanks for the tip re the CLI version.  I will check this out.

It is an oft-repeated myth that the CLI version is faster. If you don't
ever let the GUI version display its fancy but virtually meaningless
animated graphics, there is no significant difference in the rate at which
the two versions process work units.

If you're using s@h "classic", find the 'blank screen' option in there.
Then set s@h to 'always run' and from the desktop screen properties,
select the "blank" screen saver from there also.

Under this configuration, the one I used to use when I ran Windows, I
positively confirmed comparable performance between the GUI and CLI
versions.

Heh.

This is a post that was long overdue. A hard side-by-side comparison.
Wonder why such a simple idea for a test like this never surfaced???

Seperate points, but the the CLI still has additional attributes worth
using, IMO, such as caching, multiple concurrent instances, using
the faster CLI_3.03, etc.

But I guess this post answers the basic question.

It's pretty wild that no one in recent memory simply did a comparision,
rather than theoretical discussion.

Looks like Occam's Razor (of sorts) strikes again!
-- 
Strat