Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 20:22:34 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: cygwin.bat Message-ID: <20030511002234.GD17951@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <3EBC77C9.7090605@m8y.org> <3EBC793B.9000301@rfk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 09:04:28PM +0100, Sam Edge wrote: >"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.)" wrote in ><3EBC793B.9000301@rfk.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/