Re: METAL is now FREE!!!!!!

[fnet@backus.cba.csuohio.edu (Greg Boh)]

In article <24321@drutx.ATT.COM> dvac@druwa.ATT.COM (Daniel Vachon) writes:
>
>All this talk about METAL...Well, I will say that if you are running on an
>un-accelerated Apple //e, or even a Transwarped //e....I would not recommend
>METAL/FV for you.  I ran a Metal BBS for about a year (used to run on ACOS),
>and the switch ended up driving away a lot of users because it took forever
>to do many things that used to be quite fast under ACOS.  If you have an
>8MHz //gs, METAL is a great way to go....But if you are on a budget with a 
>normal //e...I would not suggest METAL as it is quite slow (painfully so, 
>really...)  

How long ago did you run METAL? And how long has it been since you looked at
the product? 

Also, when you consider that FutureVision is over 2 Megs worth of Source Code
maybe then you will REALIZE why this is.

For your information, the EXACT same code in METAL vs. ACOS will execute about
10% faster. METAL will RUN the code faster. 

FutureVision is HUGE man. It does about 7,000 more things than GBBS, LOADED to
the HILT will do. This means more code. Hencforth, yeah, it will run slower.

>My 1 MHz ACOS system ran about 5 times faster than by 3.8MHz METAL system.
>I have a //e w/1Meg RAM, 80 meg scsi HD, Transwarp //e (SCSI port was 
>accelerated), and a USR HST.   The one thing that is REALLY nice that METAL
>has and ACOS doesn't is the really slick full-screen editor that METAL has.

Like I said, METAL will outperform ACOS on a code for code basis. If someone
wanted to convert GBBS to METAL, it would be FASTER than the ACOS version. I
can GURANTEE this! Plus, if someone took the time to RE-WRITE it for METAL's
expanded command and looping structures, it would make an ACOS GBBS look like
a Model T ford. 

You have to understand that FutureVision contains about 35 TIMES more code
than a standard GBBS. So naturally, it will execute slower. It's taking on a
HELL of a lot more responsibilities.