Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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:	<20050602154308.93531.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Sunil <funtoos AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
To:	Linda W <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<429ED094.9080001@tlinx.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

> amusingling enough -- their
> execution times are *slower* than cygwin's...  Of

this is a joke right? I found SFU to be at least 2-3
times faster in loading and executing programs in
general. Its too bad their POSIX imple. is less than
half baked and unuseable for building any package
OOTB.

> course MS might have 
> deliberately used non-optimized methods for their
> services to convince
> people to recode for the Win32 interface (and thus
> benefit by increased
> Win32 lockin).

this might be famously true.

-Sunil


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 


--
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 -