Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:06:16 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: Michael Hoffman <grouse AT mail DOT utexas DOT edu>
Subject: Re: A Simple Real World Benchmark for Cygwin
In-reply-to: <20020902101958.A27819@mn.rr.com>
X-X-Sender: grouse AT mail DOT utexas DOT edu
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, Rick Richardson <rickr AT mn DOT rr DOT com>
Message-id: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0209021055250.144-100000@barbecueworld>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Rick Richardson wrote:

> Certainly, some performance degradation under CygWin could be expected
> and tolerated.  But not a factor of 30X or more.  IMHO, of course.

No! We should not tolerate any performance degradation under Cygwin
WHATSOEVER.  Cygwin should run faster than native Linux. Cygwin should run
faster than native Linux on a faster computer. Cygwin running on an aging
Windows 95 486 with automatic virus checking running should run faster
than a brand-new dual-processor Xeon system running on Linux. If the
developers stopped kicking dogs long enough to actually do some work, this
would already be a reality.

For a slightly more useful response, with slightly less sarcasm (but not
that much less :-]) check:

<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-07/msg02076.html>
-- 
Michael Hoffman <grouse AT mail DOT utexas DOT edu>
The University of Texas at Austin


--
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/