Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<5.1.0.14.2.20020902112749.02b7e0e0@pop3.cris.com>
X-Sender:	rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com
Date:	Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:37:45 -0700
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
Subject:	Re: A Simple Real World Benchmark for Cygwin
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.WNT.4.44.0209021055250.144-100000@barbecueworld>
References:	<20020902101958 DOT A27819 AT mn DOT rr DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

Michael,

You are absolutely right. We (you and I, at least) are Americans, and we 
deserve every last damn thing we want and we deserve it right 
now--yesterday, really.

Based on my experience in data compression, I might be able to help with 
the problem of making Cygwin faster than the software and hardware on which 
it runs. To wit, I've created a compression algorithm that will compress 
any and all inputs to a size smaller than that of the original. I've 
applied this compression to the program itself, iteratively, until I've got 
the whole thing down to one bit.

Here it is: 1. Feel free to use it in any way you wish.

I think that given that I could do this, I can solve the problem that 
Cygwin sometimes fail to complete a computation by the time the enter key 
has returned to its raised position.


My Maxwell's daemon is working well, too. It's nice to have on these hot days.

All the above are patent pending, of course.

Randall Schulz


At 09:06 2002-09-02, Michael Hoffman wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Rick Richardson wrote:
>
> > Certainly, some performance degradation under CygWin could be expected
> > and tolerated.  But not a factor of 30X or more.  IMHO, of course.
>
>No! We should not tolerate any performance degradation under Cygwin
>WHATSOEVER.  Cygwin should run faster than native Linux. Cygwin should run
>faster than native Linux on a faster computer. Cygwin running on an aging
>Windows 95 486 with automatic virus checking running should run faster
>than a brand-new dual-processor Xeon system running on Linux. If the
>developers stopped kicking dogs long enough to actually do some work, this
>would already be a reality.
>
>For a slightly more useful response, with slightly less sarcasm (but not
>that much less :-]) check:
>
><http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-07/msg02076.html>
>--
>Michael Hoffman


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -