Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/10/17/20:13:30
Message-ID: | <007b01bdfa2c$80aa6e80$827d14cb@dragon>
|
From: | "James Takac" <pdragon AT jtn DOT net DOT au>
|
To: | <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
|
Subject: | Re: Speed difference DOS / Win95 ???
|
Date: | Sun, 18 Oct 1998 09:18:59 +1000
|
MIME-Version: | 1.0
|
X-Priority: | 3
|
X-MSMail-Priority: | Normal
|
X-Mailer: | Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
|
X-MimeOLE: | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
|
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
try right clicking on my computer, then click on performance, and finally
graphics. I suspect you'll see your answer there as win95 has a setting for
hardware acceleration for the vid card. hope this answers your question.
-----Original Message-----
From: Get'Fix <mnemonic AT discover DOT co DOT za>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Speed difference DOS / Win95 ???
>
>Compwiz826 wrote in message
<19981012231107 DOT 17684 DOT 00000414 AT ng149 DOT aol DOT com>...
>>
>>well the reason some actions work better from win95 is that it has bulit
in
>>cache..... For dos to have a similar effect u are going to have to use
>>SMARTDRV. u have to place it in autoexec.bat
>
>
>Nope, that's not it since I run both cache in Win95 and DOS and
specifically
>pause in the program so that the cache gets enough time to flush out to
>disk. It's definately not the disk cache :(
>
>I always use smartdrv even in Win95 and never had eny problems, maybe I'm
>lucky so far... besides, compiling without disk cache is a real pain
>sometimes...
>
>
>
>
- Raw text -