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: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:28:54 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: cygwin performance Message-ID: <20031021192854.GG380@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <3F957E0D.2060405@tlinx.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F957E0D.2060405@tlinx.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:42:21AM -0700, Linda W. wrote: >Has anyone done any testing on performance of cygwin utils over their >native win counterparts? Cygwin is slower. Cygwin is known to be slower. And, if you give it a few minutes of thought it is obvious why Cygwin has to be slower. I assume that anyone who doesn't understand why cygwin programs have to be slower than normal windows programs also complains bitterly about the loss of power in their VW Bug since they started pulling a trailer around everywhere they go. What's up with that? That's the real puzzler. 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/