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 X-Originating-IP: [203.26.31.10] From: "Gareth Pearce" To: References: <3D435D5F DOT 6060309 AT softhome DOT net> Subject: Re: Does cygwin slow things down Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:38:43 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2002 03:38:32.0746 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F1EC0A0:01C235E8] > > > > Quite a while back I posted a bash shell script that developed a major > performance problem with the .11 release. I skipped the .10 release, so > maybe it was a problem there, too. The few people who ran the shell > script said it worked just fine on their machines. I tried it on some > other cygwin installations, and indeed, it did work fine. So, there > seems to be something different about one of my installations. The one > I've noticed performance problems with is running WinME, and the ones > that worked fine were Win NT 4.0. Given the number of people > undoubtedly running WinME, I'd be very surprised if it were as simple as > that... I wouldnt. There are alot of things which NT/2k/XP can support much more easily and with less performance hit then ME/98/95. And given that people who put their systems through rigorous work 'generally' (notable exceptions) use the former rather then the later, there is probably more bias at play then you think. Gareth - waits for his modem to update cygwin once again... silly slow modem. -- 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/