Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:38:02 +0200 From: Paul Sokolovsky X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.32) S/N 34D3AC61 Reply-To: Paul Sokolovsky X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <8609.991130@is.lg.ua> To: "Fraxinus" CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT In-reply-To: <007701bf3ab4$96b26060$500616ac@storebror> References: <007701bf3ab4$96b26060$500616ac AT storebror> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Fraxinus, Fraxinus wrote: F> Isnt it that all console programs under '95 runs slower. I noticed it first F> in batch files... Of course they're slower. But how much slower? I bet they're hundred times slower (in screen output, of course) than DOS apps (djgpp's, for example). But why make them times more slower? Aproximative tests: ls'ing directory with 256 entries (all dirs) (seconds) ls pw32 win95/P5-100/24 0.7 linux 2.0 P5-150/48 0.02 Cygwin b20.1 win95/P5-100/24 2.42 ls -l pw32 win95/P5-100/24 5.42 linux 2.0 P5-150/48 2.82 Cygwin b20.1 win95/P5-100/24 13.28 where pw32 is my implementation F> / Hugo Ahlenius Best regards, Paul mailto:paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com