Message-Id:	<m0yroDV-000S4KC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	"Gerhard W. Gruber" <g DOT gruber AT sis DOT co DOT at>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:43:00 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: bash eats cycles
In-reply-to:	<359B6D6E.725FCD2E@sis.co.at>

"Gerhard W. Gruber" <g DOT gruber AT sis DOT co DOT at> wrote:
> Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:
> 
> > The signifikant load is not in the idle time. It is when the dos box is
> > active. Let's assume that I start the compiler and it runs through. After
> > this is finished I switch to another dos box and start the command. As long
> > as the dos box is on screen the load is significant. I have to minimize the
> > box and then everything is back to normal but keeping the window visible is
> > a pain.
> 
> I just noticed also that the window really has to be visible to start
> blocking. It just happend that I had a dos box active but completely hidden
> behind another window and the load was ok. After closing the hiding window
> it sufficed for the dos box to become visible again and it started to slow
> dow. It might be that this is a bug in NT rather in bash, though.

Do you know about any DOS program that doesn't have this effect on 
NT? (don't tell me command.com)

If not then I guess that's a NT feature.

Doesn anybody know how NT refresh the screen of a boxed task? W95 is 
relative smart, looks like NT isn't.

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -