Message-Id: <m0xEEUD-000S1xC@inti.edu.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: Robert Hoehne <Robert DOT Hoehne AT Mathematik DOT TU-Chemnitz DOT DE>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:05:11 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Clipboard timing, strange results, Rhide (Was:  DJGPP, 
Precedence: bulk

Robert Hoehne <Robert DOT Hoehne AT Mathematik DOT TU-Chemnitz DOT DE> wrote:
> Mitchell Spector wrote:
> > 
> >    Does anybody know what difference there is between a DOS box
> > spawned directly by Win95 and a DOS shell spawned by Rhide that
> > could account for a 15-fold speed improvement when running
> > under Rhide's DOS shell?  Are interrupts handled differently
> > in some way?
> 
> What a great publicity for RHIDE!! :-)
> RHIDE speeds up your programs!! :-))
> 
> But I'm sorry to say that is has nothing to do with RHIDE. :-(
> 
> It is a phenomenon of DJGPP!!
> To check it, simply run the test program from _ANY_ other
> DJGPP program. For instance start bash and then run the
> clip.exe or do
> 
> redir clip.exe
> 
> and you will see the same speedup. But please do not ask me
> for the reason, I don't know (and have not the time to
> search for it).
In plain DOS the effect is the reverse. RHIDE slows down the programs, or at 
list the timing routines seems to indicate that. My plasmas run slower from 
RHIDE and the meassured time is less stable than trying from DOS. Why? I don't 
know.

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013