[cod] Some feedback on 1.41d

[Jay Vasallo]

I wish. I am so ugly - ugly as hell. ;-(









----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Curtis Brown" <volfin1 at earthlink.net>
To: <cod at icculus.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [cod] Some feedback on 1.41d


> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>