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 22:18:35 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: cygwin.bat Message-ID: <20030511021835.GB18826@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <3EBC77C9.7090605@m8y.org> <3EBC793B.9000301@rfk.com> <20030511002234.GD17951@redhat.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 Sun, May 11, 2003 at 03:11:30AM +0100, Sam Edge wrote: >cjf wrote in <20030511002234.GD17951@redhat.com> >in gmane.os.cygwin on Sat, 10 May 2003 20:22:34 -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. >> > [snip] > >> Translation: Except for a neglible startup cost, it's probably his >> imagination. > >Negligible on a modern PC. Noticeable on some of the kit I've got >here. ;-) I *really* find that hard to believe. I've run cygwin on some pretty slow computers and I've never noticed a slowdown from running bash in a command shell. Even Windows should be smart enough to know that it can swap out most of command.com when bash.exe is running so I don't know how this could be a resource thing. 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/