|
|
|
|
|
|
by taeric
1130 days ago
|
|
|
Ha, I thought I saw 4.5ms from another post. Not sure where I got that number. :( Realizing this is why someone said the number was more like 2ms. I don't think that changes much of my view here. Again, kudos on making it faster, if they do. |
|
|