From:	Dominique Biesmans <dominique DOT biesmans AT ping DOT be>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Watcom 32
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:10:20 +0200
Organization:	EUnet Belgium, Leuven, Belgium
Lines:	27
Message-ID:	<35D1BE6B.4B58A03A@ping.be>
References:	<00ae01bdc606$00ea4b20$156064a4 AT anandbis>
Reply-To:	dominique DOT biesmans AT ping DOT be
NNTP-Posting-Host:	dialusr30.leuven.eunet.be
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Hmm, lets see, (.. think .. think ... think ...) I KNOW !!!! DJGPP IS FREE !!!!
(wow, I'm a genious)

And BTW, if you want to make serious remarks about differences in speed, you
will have to do a lot better then '29 sec. for a 1.20 sec file'. Do you mean 29
seconds in the Watcom version for 1.20 seconds in the DJGPP version? Seems like
DJGPP is about 20 times faster than Watcom ..  :-). Anyway, what kind of
optimization is specified in both versions? Do you use the pentium version of
DJGPP, etc .....

Anand Singh Bisen wrote:

> Hello
>
>     I have just downloaded the POV Ray for DOS source code. Then i compiled
> the code with DJGPP and Watcom both and i found out that the EXE size of the
> Watcom version was smaller and the ray tracing with Watcom was really very
> noticable i.e 29 sec for a 1.20 sec  file. I wanted to know that if watcom
> supports intel style of assembly and it's also a 32 bit protected mode
> compiler and it is also better in many other ways like optimisation and code
> size then why is DJGPP so popular.
>
>     Greetings
>
> Anand Singh Bisen
>

- Raw text -