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: <20050602154308.93531.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:43:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Sunil Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) To: Linda W In-Reply-To: <429ED094.9080001@tlinx.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes > amusingling enough -- their > execution times are *slower* than cygwin's... Of this is a joke right? I found SFU to be at least 2-3 times faster in loading and executing programs in general. Its too bad their POSIX imple. is less than half baked and unuseable for building any package OOTB. > course MS might have > deliberately used non-optimized methods for their > services to convince > people to recode for the Win32 interface (and thus > benefit by increased > Win32 lockin). this might be famously true. -Sunil __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/