From: "Matthew Waddilove" <matthew AT waddilove DOT u-net DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980702132102 DOT 17177C-100000 AT is> <359B6C95 DOT E4CDECE2 AT sis DOT co DOT at> <359B6D6E DOT 725FCD2E AT sis DOT co DOT at>
Subject: Re: bash eats cycles
Message-ID: <BoVm1.3604$Zh.1790980@newsr2.u-net.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 00:15:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.119.133.242
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 01:15:29 BST
Organization: (Posted via) U-NET Internet Ltd.
Lines: 30
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


Gerhard W. Gruber wrote in message <359B6D6E DOT 725FCD2E AT sis DOT co DOT at>...
>Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:
>
>> The signifikant load is not in the idle time. It is when the dos box is
>> active. Let's assume that I start the compiler and it runs through. After
>> this is finished I switch to another dos box and start the command. As
long
>> as the dos box is on screen the load is significant. I have to minimize
the
>> box and then everything is back to normal but keeping the window visible
is
>> a pain.
>
>I just noticed also that the window really has to be visible to start
>blocking. It just happend that I had a dos box active but completely hidden
>behind another window and the load was ok. After closing the hiding window
>it sufficed for the dos box to become visible again and it started to slow
>dow. It might be that this is a bug in NT rather in bash, though.
>--


I think that it's NT basically almost any program that I have used that uses
the
NTVDM takes up 100% CPU if it can get it.  one thing that you could try it
to
set the proirity for NTVDM to LOW from NORMAL but that might cause even more
problems :)