Date:	Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:14:13 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com, allegro AT canvaslink DOT com, balug-lst AT balug DOT org DOT ar
Subject:	Re: Compilers comparisson, some opinions about the generated , assembler
In-Reply-To:	<3767CB78.FC5F36A6@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990617101337.22717B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, salvador wrote:

> Interesting, I never saw important differences in tasks that
> consumes only CPU (no disk at all).

I'm not sure disk I/O is the problem, because disk-intensive programs
run faster on Windows (due to a smarter disk cache).

- Raw text -