Message-ID: <007b01bdfa2c$80aa6e80$827d14cb@dragon>
From: "James Takac" <pdragon AT jtn DOT net DOT au>
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Speed difference DOS / Win95 ???
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 09:18:59 +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-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

try right clicking on my computer, then click on performance, and finally
graphics. I suspect you'll see your answer there as win95 has a setting for
hardware acceleration for the vid card. hope this answers your question.

-----Original Message-----
From: Get'Fix <mnemonic AT discover DOT co DOT za>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Speed difference DOS / Win95 ???


>
>Compwiz826 wrote in message
<19981012231107 DOT 17684 DOT 00000414 AT ng149 DOT aol DOT com>...
>>
>>well the reason some actions work better from win95 is that it has bulit
in
>>cache..... For dos to have a similar effect u are going to have to use
>>SMARTDRV. u have to place it in autoexec.bat
>
>
>Nope, that's not it since I run both cache in Win95 and DOS and
specifically
>pause in the program so that the cache gets enough time to flush out to
>disk. It's definately not the disk cache :(
>
>I always use smartdrv even in Win95 and never had eny problems, maybe I'm
>lucky so far... besides, compiling without disk cache is a real pain
>sometimes...
>
>
>
>