Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:26:51 -0500
To: Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua>
Cc: Chris Faylor <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT
Message-ID: <19991129112651.A5279@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua>,
	Chris Faylor <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
References: <19991126122322 DOT A2084 AT cygnus DOT com> <10616 DOT 991129 AT is DOT lg DOT ua>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <10616.991129@is.lg.ua>; from paul-ml@is.lg.ua on Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 02:47:39PM +0200

On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 02:47:39PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>>>It's known issue of Cygwin (and other POSIX layers, e.g.  UWIN).  They
>>>all by some reason (probably because they themselves were developed on
>>>NT, without enough attention to other Win32 systems) count Win9x as
>>>'degraded mode'.
>
>CF> Oh yeah.  That was it.  If only we'd paid more attention to Windows 95,
>CF> Cygwin would be much faster.  I knew that we should have used the
>CF> "GoFasterOnWin9x (TRUE);' function.
>
>    Joke, guys, joke. I can laugh you even more: I was so amused by
>assurance that sane POSIX implementation cannot be done on Win95 that
>take making proof of that as my thesis (i.e. I stated that I would
>implement such thing and it will be as bad as already existing).
>Consider my condition when I had to announce on the defend that I
>failed achieving objectives of my thesis! For some unknown reason
>stupid thing didn't want to work badly - it did screen output quite
>fast, process files fast also and didn't corrupt them trying to cut
>\r\n to \n or vice-versa. But don't hold breath, story has happy end:
>I was granted my Master degree.

If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
wonder why you aren't using it.

>CF> If anyone thinks they can optimize things so that console I/O works
>CF> better on Windows 95, I'll be thrilled to consider a patch.
>
>    Back from humor, if you consider only "optimization patches",
>probably nothing can be done - I believe that there's really nothing
>unneeded in cygwin, as comprehensive POSIX implementation.
>
>    But take an other perspective: how many programs require general
>POSIX terminal interface? My estimate that no more than 20% At least
>fileutils, textutils, shellutils, binutils - most commonly used
>packages doesn't use it. Make lightweight write() path for them -
>directly to WriteFile() and then see the difference.

Again, feel free to provide a patch.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com