"Martin 53N 1W" <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote in message
news:_IgQc.1657$ZL1.653@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

Stratcat wrote:

"Randall Schulz" <sinkhole@tarpit.net> wrote in message

[...]

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.

[...]

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???

[...]

Supposedly, the GUI still executes additional code for graphics support
even if those graphics are not displayed. Hence, on an identical system,
the WinNT-CLI-3.03 is faster than the GUI version.

Re: CLI_3.03 vs GUI - Agreed. Irrespective of graphics, the GUI is based on
the slower 3.08 core client, w/the additional security code.

I was attempting to demonstrate the advantages of using a CLI client,
even IF 3.08 CLI & GUI run times ARE equal, since the faster CLI_3.03
can be used.

(Might still be true
even for the slower WinNT-CLI-3.08 version.)

According to the 'tester', there was no difference. I don't know his
methodology. There's always the possiblitlity of a 'difference' in run times
being w/i the margin of his testing error.

Who's tested this?

My reply was in response to Randall's post, where he states he did
a back-to-back comparison. It can be found in its entirety here:

news:pan.2004.08.04.17.57.16.773924@tarpit.net

Lost in the Team Lamb Chop stats???

He did not claim any affiliation w/TLC in his post. That's not to say
he's not a TLC member. I do not recall him from the ARS forums,
but it's a very large team w/only a portion of the members active in
the forums.

This is now a little 'academic' as you should be moving over to BOINC.

True! ;-)

But it seems to have been a perennial question during the time I've
spent here...
-- 
Strat