Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <000501c23546$55db1840$0200000a@K6BW> From: "Bill Smith" To: , Subject: RE: Does cygwin slow things down Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:19:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Thus spoke: "Gary R. Van Sickle" >Slower than... not running at all? Almost, and yes, to the point where cygwin is so slow that it is not a practical foundation for program development. Since the .10 revision, literally seconds go by between simple operations such as when executing a .sh list of file copies. Under DOS, images of the Harbour compiler (http://www.harbour.org) are downloaded from Sourceforge, then cygwin (gcc) is used to build images of the compiler, all the while keeping cygwin current. Cygwin has proved an excellent platform, until the last two major revisions. What used to take only several minutes to run through the makefile now can extend beyond twenty! The computer here is an old Pentium 166 with 64 mbytes of memory, but the response has been quite adequate. I would expect even a faster system would not fully mask whatever is inhibiting the current performance of cygwin. Sorry I can't be more helpful or more specific. Bill billsmith AT ispwest DOT com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/