[cod] Some feedback on 1.41d

[Curtis Brown]

is that your picture at www.amd.com/gamer?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Vasallo" <haze at clanwarz.net>
To: <cod at icculus.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [cod] Some feedback on 1.41d


> I have for Ut2004. I will have an article published at www.amd.com/gamer.
> Then I will relink you guys so you can see them. Sorry, but I can't share
> the graphs atm since I am graphing them for amd.
>
> But do a quick test yourself. zip up a gig of info and time it!  It also
has
> some pretty dscent anti-hack features.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus at clutteredmind.org>
> To: <cod at icculus.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [cod] Some feedback on 1.41d
>
>
> >
> >> Gentoo out performs anything, anyway, any day, anyhow.  I would LOVE to
> >> switch over to it but our stupid server company has us on a contract to
> >> us RHE, and I hate it with a dying passion.
> >
> > I ask this as a user of Gentoo myself...
> >
> > Has anyone actually ever benchmarked a Gentoo system to decide that the
> > final result is actually faster?
> >
> > And if so, what is the metric for that?
> >
> > I really like portage, but I tend to roll my eyes when the "it's way
> > more optimized than those binary-only distros!" platitudes start flying.
> >
> > --ryan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>