Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/05/10/20:22:49
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 09:04:28PM +0100, Sam Edge wrote:
>"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com> wrote in
><3EBC793B DOT 9000301 AT rfk DOT com>
>in gmane.os.cygwin on Fri, 09 May 2003 23:59:55 -0400:
>
>> >Could be my imagination, but even seems a
>> > little slower.
>
>> That *would* be your imagination.
>
>Maybe not.
>
>If you start up bash.exe directly by double-clicking it or by putting
>bash.exe in a shortcut, then only one process is created.
>
>If you use cygwin.bat, then under Windows NT/2k/XP you first have a
>CMD.EXE process created and then a bash.exe. The CMD.EXE sits around
>doing nothing until the bash.exe process exits.
>
>It will therefore take longer to get from the initial double-click to
>the cursor flashing at the bash prompt. On a slower PC this may be a
>discernable extra delay.
>
>The extra CME.EXE also uses system resources (virtual memory, kernel
>objects, etc.) and will therefore slow all other processes down by a
>very small amount, although I doubt whether this effect would be
>noticeable unless the PC was already heavily over-committed.
Translation: Except for a neglible startup cost, it's probably his
imagination.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -